Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Mungara Muralikrishna Yadav, S/o. Late Ramakrishna Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Mungara Sailaja, W/o. Mungara Muralikrishna Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the respondent in F.C.O.P.No.114 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Nellore, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2018 passed therein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners before the Family Court.
2. Appellant is the husband and the respondents 1 and 2 are his wife and son respectively. Petition/suit was filed for grant of maintenance in terms of Section 18(2) (a) (b) (e) (g) and Section 20 (2) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, for awarding past maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to each of the petitioners totalling to Rs.10,000/- per month for the period from 12.03.2010 to 11.3.2013, which comes to Rs.3,60,000/- with interest @24% p.m., till payment is made and for directing future maintenance from the date of legal proceedings at the same rate and also for creation of the charge over the properties of the appellant. The suit/ petition was allowed directing payment of past maintenance at Rs.5000/- per month to each petitioners, totalling to Rs.3,60,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.,
The court emphasized that maintenance must be adequate to meet the basic needs of the wife, reinforcing the husband's obligation to provide financial support.
Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance.
Maintenance of wife—It is not only moral obligation, but a legal duty cast upon husband to maintain his wife and children.
Point of Law : It is settled that maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wife and children for their financial support; so as to prevent th....
Delay in filing a maintenance application does not negate entitlement to maintenance; consent to separate was misinterpreted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
