THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD F.C.A. No. 222 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This Family Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.08.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in F.C.O.P. No. 674 of 2006, awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 till she remarries and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 till he attains majority, from the date of ﬁling the O.P. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant is the husband of respondent No.1, while respondent No.2 is their son. The appellant ﬁled O.P. No. 366 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Court below seeking divorce from respondent No.1, and the same was allowed by order dated 25.05.2006. Questioning the said order of divorce, respondent No.1 ﬁled appeal in F.C.A. No. 68 of 2006, and the same is pending. Much prior to the ﬁling of O.P. for divorce by the appellant, it appears that the respondents ﬁled M.C. No. 175 of 2003 on the ﬁle of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was allowed awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month each to the respondents. While the appeal ﬁled by respondent No.1 against the order of divorce is pending, she along with her son ﬁled the present F.C.O.P. under Sections 18 and 20 of the Adoptions and Maintenance Act, claiming maintenance from the appellant, contending that the quantum of maintenance awarded in M.C. is not sufficient. The Court below, by reason of the order under appeal, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 till she remarries and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 till he attains majority. It is the contention of the appellant that respondent No.1 treated him with cruelty and this is evident from the fact that the Court below had granted him divorce on the ground that respondent No.1 treated him with cruelty. That respondent No.1 filed criminal cases against him under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Domestic Violence Act, which are still pending. He denied the contention of respondent No.1 that he owns house property, and submitted that he is working as Salesman in a Shoe Mart, and earning Rs.1,800/- per month, that he has to take care of his wife, whom he married subsequent to divorce from respondent No.1, and also age old father. That he is already paying maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.500/- each, as awarded by the Court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, in the M.C. ﬁled by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, it is his case that the Court below, without taking into consideration all these aspects, has committed an error in awarding maintenance to the respondents as noted above. The appellant, admittedly, obtained divorce from respondent No.1. After the Court below granted divorce, and after expiry of the appeal time, the appellant got remarried. The appeal ﬁled by respondent No.1 against the order granting divorce to the appellant is pending before this Court, and this Court granted stay of the divorce order. Be that as it may, under Hindu Law, the appellant, being the husband, is under an obligation to maintain his wife, including divorced wife, and children till they attain majority. No doubt, the appellant is paying maintenance of Rs.500/- each per month to the respondents, as awarded in the M.C., but it is the case of the respondents that the amount awarded is very meagre and that the said amount is not suﬃcient for their maintenance. Though the appellant denied that he is having house property and doing business, as contended by respondent No.1, but considering the rising inﬂation and the cost of living, and the obligation of the appellant to maintain his wife, even if she is divorced, and also the son, we are of the considered opinion that the maintenance awarded by the Court below at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2, by reason of the order under appeal, cannot be said to be excessive, warranting interference therewith. The appeal is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 25th November, 2011 IBL