THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S. No. 2852 of 2001 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Family Court, Kurnool, decreeing the suit O.S. No. 9 of 2001, filed by the respondents claiming maintenance. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-husband and the learned counsel for the respondents-wife and children of the appellant. Though the appellant contended that the 1st respondent deserted him and has been residing separately for the last 17 years prior to the date of filing of the O.P., the fact remains, as is evident from the judgment under appeal, the Court below upon appreciation of the documentary evidence i.e. the photographs found that the appellant, came to the conclusion that the appellant was living with the 1st respondent and that they performed the cradle ceremony of their grant son recently, which the appellant also did not deny, and on the other hand, the Court below found that just ten months prior to the filing of the suit, the appellant deserted the appellants and was living separately. Thus it is clear that it is not the 1st respondent, but the appellant has deserted the respondents and is living separately from them. Though the appellant expressed his inability to pay Rs.3,000/- as maintenance, but considering the fact that the appellant in his cross-examination had admitted that before the Lok Adalat, he has agreed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the appellants in full and final settlement of their claim, and as the appellant has deserted the appellants, the Court below felt it appropriate to award maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st appellant, and accordingly, by reason of the judgment under appeal, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st appellant and dismissed the claim of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 for maintenance as they are majors. The findings recorded by the Court below being based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, no interference is warranted therewith. And likewise, the award of maintenance to the 1st appellant at the rate of Rs.3,000/-, considering the employment of the appellant, who is a government employee, cannot be said to be high, warranting its reduction in appeal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 2nd November, 2011 KSR