Family court - enhancing maintaiance from Rs.3,000 to Rs.30,000/- = held that having regard to the status of the appellant working as Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and getting gross salary of Rs.1,65,000/- which is evident from the admissions made by him in his evidence, we are of the view that the trial Court rightly enhanced the maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to her daughter respectively. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be improper or incorrect.

 Family court - enhancing maintaiance from Rs.3,000 to Rs.30,000/- = held that  having regard to the status of the appellant working as Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and getting gross salary of Rs.1,65,000/- which is evident from the admissions made by him in his evidence, we are of the view that the trial Court rightly enhanced the maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to her daughter respectively. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be improper or incorrect.

AP HIGH COURT

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

&

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

F.C.A. No. 164 of 2019

N RAJASEKHAR
Versus
N SYAMALAMMA

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

 Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and

perused the material placed on record.

 This appeal came to be filed under Section 19(1) of the

Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated

16.10.2019 passed in I.A.No. 35 of 2018 in O.S.No. 16 of 2019

by IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kurnool

wherein the application filed by the respondents herein

namely wife and daughter of the appellant seeking

enhancement of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/-

per month, was allowed.

 Originally, the 1st respondent herein along with her two

minor children filed O.S.No. 16 of 1999 on the file of the

Judge, Family Court, Kurnool seeking past maintenance of

Rs.2,16,000/- commencing from 20.12.1996 to 20.12.1999 at

the rate of Rs.2,000/- for herself and Rs.2,000/- each to her

minor daughters (N.Ramya Silpa and N.Amulya) and also

future maintenance. She also filed O.P.No. 42 of 1999

seeking restitution of conjugal rights. While the appellant

filed O.P.No. 28 of 2000 for dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty, O.P.No. 29 of 2000 came to be filed for

the custody of elder child (2nd plaintiff in the suit). By 

 CPK,J & DEV,J

 FCA_164_ 2019 2

Common judgment dated 15.05.2001, the learned Judge,

while dismissing O.P.Nos.28 and 29 of 2000 filed by the

appellant, allowed O.P.No.42 of 1999 filed by the wife and

decreed the suit with proportionate costs directing the

appellant-defendant to pay past maintenance of Rs.72,000/-

to the plaintiffs and also monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-

to the first plaintiff and Rs.1000/- each to plaintiffs 2 and 3.

It appears that the said Common Judgment has become final.

 Thereafter, the present application in I.A.No. 35 of

2018 came to be filed by the wife and her daughter –

N.Amulya seeking enhancement of maintenance from

Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/- on the ground that the appellant –

husband is working as Assistant Executive Engineer at

Guntakal and getting monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is

said that they are living in a rented house Kurnool by paying

exorbitant rent. It is further pleaded that the 2nd respondent

herein is studying B.Pharmacy and she needs substantial

amount to meet her educational expenses. The appellant

filed counter in I.A.No. 35 of 2018 denying the averments of

the affidavit. According to him, he brought up his first

daughter N.Ramya Shilpa, educated her up to B.Tech Degree

and has peen paying Rs.9,000/- per month regularly instead

of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents as decreed in the

suit. In order to prove their case, the respondents herein

examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and the

appellant examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 - 

 CPK,J & DEV,J

 FCA_164_ 2019 3

salary certificate. After considering the evidence on record,

the trial Court allowed the application enhancing the

maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Challenging

the same, the appellant – husband has filed the present

appeal.

 A perusal of Ex.B1 and the evidence of PW1 goes to

show that the appellant is working as Assistant Executive

Engineer and drawing a net salary of Rs.1,35,000/- p.m. The

facts show that the appellant is working as an Assistant

Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department, the

2

nd respondent is studying B-Pharmacy and that the daughter

and mother live separately by paying house rent in Kurnool.

He further admits that the Court directed him to pay a sum

of Rs.3,000/- but he has been paying Rs.9,000/- p.m. from

July 2017 in pursuance of a call received from the

2

nd respondent herein that they are not able to meet their

both ends meet.

 Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case

and having regard to the status of the appellant working as

Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and

getting gross salary of Rs.1,65,000/- which is evident from

the admissions made by him in his evidence, we are of the

view that the trial Court rightly enhanced the maintenance

to Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per

month to her daughter respectively. Hence, the impugned

order cannot be said to be improper or incorrect. That 

 CPK,J & DEV,J

 FCA_164_ 2019 4

apart, the appellant is hereby directed to pay arrears if any

from the date of the petition within a period of twenty

months in equal instalments. The extra amount of

Rs.6,000/- p.m. paid by the petitioner shall be adjusted in

the arears to be payable to the respondents.

 With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

 As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending,

shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

 __________________

 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

11.02.2020

 _________________

 BATTU DEVANAND, J

bcj