Family court - Hindu Adoption and Maintainance Act - In the absence of any material to show that the wife and her daughter have any source of income, and on the other hand, when there is material on record to show that the appellant has agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.24 cents and Ac.3.35 cents in Bandapalli village and also a house bearing D.No. 62-8-24 at Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents cannot be said to be on a higher side.

 Family court - Hindu Adoption and Maintainance Act - In the absence of any material to show that the wife and her daughter have any source of income, and on the other hand, when there is material on record to show that the appellant has agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.24 cents and Ac.3.35 cents in Bandapalli village and also a house bearing D.No. 62-8-24 at Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents cannot be said to be on a higher side.

AP HIGH COURT 

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

&

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

F.C.A. No. 162 of 2019

PAKALAPATI SEETHA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU

Versus

PAKALAPATI VAHINI

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

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

Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated

13.09.2019 passed in F.C.O.P.No. 5 of 2014 by the Judge,

Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam wherein the

application filed by the respondents herein namely wife and

daughter of the appellant under Sections 18 and 20 of the

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act seeking maintenance,

was allowed in part.

 The respondents herein filed F.C.O.P. No.5 of 2014

claiming maintenance of Rs.3,60,000/- each towards past

maintenance for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2013,

and to pay them maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per

month each from 01.01.2014 and to create charge over the

petition schedule property of the appellant for future

maintenance.

 In support of their case, the respondents examined

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. Taking

into consideration the evidence on record, the trial Court

rejected the request of the respondents with regard to past

maintenance, while awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- each per 

 CPK,J & DEV,J

 FCA_162_ 2019 2

month to the respondents and the appellant was also

directed to pay arrears of maintenance as ordered by the

High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the

State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide order dated

13.07.2015 passed in C.R.P.No.1110 of 2015, in ten

installments along with maintenance awarded before

10th day of every succeeding month and that first of such

installments shall be paid on or before 10th October, 2019.

Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

 This Court, on 12.12.2019, ordered notice to the

respondents. In spite of service of notice, there is no

representation on behalf of the respondents.

 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the material placed on record.

 The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits

that there is no evidence on record to show that the

appellant worked in any organization and earned monthly

salary. He further submits that though PW1 stated in her

evidence that the appellant is working as a Teacher, in view

of the acquittal of the appellant in C.C.No. 122 of 2010,

dated 13.07.2012, the allegations made against him are false

and frivolous in nature. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material

to show that the appellant is earning any income, the order

granting maintenance is improper and incorrect. In the

alternative, he pleads that in view of the order passed by 

 CPK,J & DEV,J

 FCA_162_ 2019 3

this Court in C.R.P. 1110 of 2015, dated 13.07.2015 wherein

maintenance amount was reduced to Rs.2,000/- and

Rs.1,500/- respectively per month to each of the respondents

respectively, the trial Court ought to have awarded lesser

amount than what has been awarded by this Court.

 As seen from the record, the fact that the respondents

are wife and daughter of the appellant is not in dispute. No

evidence has been adduced to show that the 1st respondent

has any independent source of income. On the other hand,

the evidence of PW1 itself shows that she was neglected by

the appellant and was forced to live separately from 2007

onwards. Her evidence further shows that the appellant is

working as Teacher and getting Rs.15,000/- p.m. as salary

and also Rs.25,000/- p.m. from money lending business.

Apart from that he is getting Rs.1,50,000/- per annum on

agriculture. The evidence on record also shows that the

appellant – husband is living in South Africa under the guise

of employment till January, 2007 and from then onwards the

1

st respondent is residing with her parents and now the

2

nd respondent has grown up and going to school. As such,

pleads that the 1st respondent – wife is unable to bear

educational expenses including their maintenance.

 The learned counsel for the appellant did not deny the

relationship of the appellant with the respondents. The

record further shows that PW1 filed her evidence in the form

of an affidavit on 24.06.2015, but the appellant failed to 

 CPK,J & DEV,J

 FCA_162_ 2019 4

cross-examine her even by 20.03.2018, as such, he was set

ex parte. It is to be noted that the appellant failed to

provide any maintenance to his wife and daughter and left

the country in January 2007 and from then onwards the

1

st respondent was living with her parents. Though the

1

st respondent is alleged to have been running a fashion

business, no proof has been filed to substantiate the same.

In the absence of any material to show that the wife and her

daughter have any source of income, and on the other hand,

when there is material on record to show that the appellant

has agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.24 cents and

Ac.3.35 cents in Bandapalli village and also a house bearing

D.No. 62-8-24 at Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam, directing him

to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents

cannot be said to be on a higher side.

 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we

see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

 Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is

accordingly, dismissed. 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