JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2023 passed in FCOP No.495 of 2011 on the file of Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

2. The appellant is the respondent before the Court below. The respondent herein is his wife and petitioner in FCOP No.495 of 2011. The petition was filed invoking Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 with a prayer to direct the respondent therein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from the date of the petition and also past maintenance at the same rate, for the period from August 2008 to April 2011, amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- and also for costs etc.

3. Learned Judge, Family Court allowed the petition in part, awarding maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of the petition, i.e., 07.04.2011 and past maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month from August 2008 till 06.04.2011 while permitting the payment of arrears in (10) monthly instalments, along with the regular maintenance amount. Aggrieved thereby present appeal is filed.

4. Marriage between the parties was performed on 19.11.1980 and they are blessed with two sons during the wedlock. Usual allegations as to ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial journey like presentation of dowry, demand for additional dowry, contribution of the petitioner/wife for the uplift of the family and purchase of certain properties and clearance of the debts etc., and denial thereof from the end of the husband, are found in the petition and counter, which are referred in the impugned Orders, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, wife will be hereinafter referred as ‘the petitioner’ and the husband will be referred as ‘the respondent’.

Case of the Wife/petitioner:-

6. Case of the petitioner, in brief, relevant for the proceedings is that –

[i] she was neglected and made to return from New Zealand forcibly and she was deserted. Accordingly, she came down to India and started living alone from 2008 at Visakhapatnam.

[ii] The respondent/husband has initiated proceedings almost simultaneously at Family Court at Visakhapatnam and also before the Court at Auckland in New Zealand, for divorce suppressing the fact as to the pendency of the matter in other Court and got divorce from Auckland Court at New Zealand, thereafter not pressed the proceedings initiated for divorce at Visakhapatnam.

[iii] The divorce granted by the Court at New Zealand is not binding on her.

[iv] She has been residing separately on desertion and on being neglected by her husband. She has sufficient reasons to live separately including one that the respondent/ husband is guilty of bigamy.

[v] She has no means to maintain herself, whereas the respondent had sufficient means in the form of properties and income, being the retired employee and pensioner. Therefore, he can provide maintenance as prayed for.

Case of the husband/respondent:-

7. [i] He worked at Andhra Bank, took voluntary retirement in 1999 and went to the New Zealand.

[ii] His wife/petitioner became permanent resident at New Zealand;

[iii] On the ground of separate living, the Auckland Court granted divorce and the same became final. Hence, the petitioner/wife is not entitled for any relief, more so for maintenance. She has voluntarily deserted him.

[iv] In F.C.O.P.No.1269 of 2009 filed by him through his GPA, before the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, his wife filed I.A.No.88 of 2010 seeking for maintenance, alleging desertion, whereas the version is contradictory before the Court at Auckland.

[v] On satisfying with the separate living, divorce was granted by the Court at New Zealand, thereafter he has not pressed the proceedings before the Family Court at Visakhapatnam vide FCOP No.1269 of 2009.

[vi] Now, there is no matrimonial relationship and the petitioner/wife is entitled for the relief in terms of the Policy of the New Zealand Government, being a