The legal point established is the justification for claiming maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, considering grounds for staying separately and the appellant's financial capacity.

JUDGMENT

N.B. Suryawanshi, J. - This appeal was called out for final hearing yesterday. The learned counsel for the appellant was present, however none appeared for the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant for some time, the matter was adjourned for today. However, even today none appears for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment dated 02/09/2016 in Petition No. C-40/2014 passed by the learned Family Court No.3, Nagpur, thereby allowing the petition of the respondent-wife filed under Sections 18(l)(2)(a),(b),(e) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 thereby granting maintenance @ Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.

3. Facts in brief are that the respondent filed petition seeking maintenance contending that her marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 01/06/1985 at Waghoda, Tah. Saoner, District Nagpur as per the Hindu rites and customs. The appellant was serving in South Eastern Central Railway Workshop. Out of the wedlock, two male children namely Praful and Pravin and two female children namely Ranjana and Nita were born. At the time of filing of the maintenance petition both the daughters were married. However Ranjana was widow. The elder son Pravin was staying with the respondent/mother, whereas, the younger son Praful was staying with the appellant/father. It was alleged in the petition that the appellant meted out physical and mental cruelty towards the respondent. The appellant was addicted to drinking and was awomanizer. Though the respondent tried to convince him not to indulge in such acts, he did not listen to her. He even had an extra marital affair and used to spend maximum period of his life with the lady whose name was disclosed in the petition. The appellant used to mercilessly beat respondent under the influence of liquor. On 17/03/2014 the appellant under the influence of liquor abused the respondent and refused to severe his illicit relations. He also threatened to kill the respondent. Hence the respondent was constrained to file a complaint against him which was registered as NCR No. 227 of 2014 with Yashodhra Nagar Police Station. The respondent further averred that the appellant was working as a Helper in South Eastern Central Railway and was drawing salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. In spite of having sufficient means he neglected and refused to provide maintenance to the respondent. The respondent was deserted for a period of more than seven years. She therefore claimed maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.

4. The appellant by filing a written statement denied all the allegations of the respondent and resisted her claim for maintenance. The appellant claimed that he has performed marriages of his both the daughters and it was the respondent who was guilty of desertion. He had never ill-treated her. It was further claimed that respondent used to threaten the appellant that he would be implicated in false criminal cases. He claimed that he was working as a Helper in South Eastern Central Railway Nagpur and his carry home salary was Rs. 16,470/- per month. For performing the marriage of his two daughters he obtained loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-from his friends. He also had to incur expenditure for construction of his house. He had to maintain the younger son who was taking education and also his old aged mother. He was required to deposit Rs. 3,000/- per month in L.I.C. He stated that he was ready to maintain the respondent and he was willing to cohabit with her.

5. Before the Family Court the respondent filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence reiterating the contentions in the petition. Though she was cross examined, nothing damaging to her case could be brought on record during the cross examination.

6. On behalf of the respondent daughter Nita was examined as PW 2. She supported the case of the respondent stating that the appellant was a habitual drinker and he ha