THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY F.C.A. NO :99 of 2009 Date: 8.9.2009 Between: Vulchi Subrahmanyam, Nellore. ..... APPELLANT AND Vulchi Indira Devi, Nellore. .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY F.C.A. No. 99 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Smt. T. Meena Kumari,J) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court in F.C.O.P. No.300 of 2008, dated 30thSeptember, 2008 whereby and whereunder the learned judge directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent filed F.C.O.P. No. 300 of 2008 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family court, Nellore seeking a direction to the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent pleaded in the O.P. that the appellant married her on 25.7.194 at Ramalayam, Balaji Nagar, Nellore as per Hindu rites and she joined him immediately after marriage. She led marital life for about three months and thereafter the appellant and his mother started harassing her and did not take care of her minimal needs and deserted her. She further stated that though she was sent to her paternal house for Ashadam, the appellant instead of bringing her back, filed O.S. No. 520 of 1995 for grant of permanent injunction against the respondent and her brother from entering into the house; that subsequently, he filed yet another O.P., namely, H.M.O.P. No.51 of 1995 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore seeking to declare his marriage with the respondent as null and void. The said O.P. was dismissed on 15.4.2006. Subsequently, she filed the present O.P., impugned in this appeal seeking payment of maintenance. She further pleaded that the appellant is owning a marriage reception hall worth Rs.2.00 crores and is getting an income of Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum from out of it, besides doing money lending business. She, therefore, submits that the appellant is having sufficient means and income to pay the maintenance amount. As the appellant himself has neglected and deserted her, the petition be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the appellant to pay the maintenance amount. While opposing the said contentions, the appellant filed counter affidavit stating that his marriage with the respondent was not consummated as she was impotent and was not fit for sexual cohabitation. He also denied the allegation that he deserted her. He further stated that the respondent lived with the appellant for about a month and thereafter she left for her brother’s house and she did not join him thereafter. Subsequently, he filed O.S. No. 520 of 1995 against her and her brother as they have continuously threatened to trespass into the house. He also admitted about filing of H.M.O.P. No. 51 of 1995 for declaring the marriage as null and void. As the said O.P. was dismissed, he claims to have filed A.S. No. 286 of 2006 and the same is sub-judice. Though, he did not deny about the factum of running a kalyana mandapam, however, he stated that the income that is being derived from the kalyana mandapam is only sufficient for meeting the expenditure of salaries, electricity charges and other items. He further stated that he is not doing any money lending business. He finally pleaded that as the respondent has deserted him for the last 13 years, she has no right to claim maintenance and the petition be dismissed. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the respondent having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner ? 2. Whether the petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself ? On behalf of the respondent-petitioner, P.ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, however, no documents were marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed the said O.P. and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal. There is no dispute about the relationship of the parties. The trial Court having found that the appellant is residing in his own house and is also running a Kalyana Mandapam in a three flooried building; is getting an income of about Rs.10,00,000/- per annum out of the said kalyana mandapam. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed any contra evidence to disprove the same either before this Court or the trial Court. That apart, the trial Court taking into account the fact that the respondent is residing with his brother and is not having any property or source of income to maintain herself, allowed the said O.P. and granted maintenance at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 8th September, 2009 ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J pnb