THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR F.C.A. No. 133 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) This Family Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in O.P. No. 1057 of 2007 by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. The appellant herein is the sole respondent and respondents herein are the petitioners before the lower Court. The appellant herein and the 1st respondent are the husband and wife and respondents 2 and 3 are their minor children. The marriage of the appellant and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 19.01.1989 as per Mohammedan Law and they were blessed with three sons namely Syed Saad Makki, Syed Yaseen Makki and Syed Taha Makki. It appears, thereafter, some disputes arose between the wife and husband and then respondents herein filed the present O.P. before the lower Court, under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 read with Section 7 (F) of Family Court Act, inter alia contending that the appellant-husband did not pay the admitted dower to the 1st respondent-wife and failed to maintain the wife and children and finally deserted them on 08.03.2006 and started living separately, that the 1st respondent is unable to maintain herself and her children and meet their educational expenses, and that though she pronounced ‘khula’ by publishing a notice in local newspaper, the appellant did not accept the same and thus he is liable to maintain the respondents, and hence they sought directions to the appellant-husband to pay to the 1st respondent-wife an amount of Rs.10,000/- and one tula three grams of gold towards dower, Rs.1,75,000/- towards past maintenance, Rs.10,000/- per month to respondents 2 and 3 till they attain the age of majority and Rs.5,000/- per month to the 1st respondent-wife, towards their maintenance, from the date of petition, and continue to pay the same in future. The appellant-husband resisted the petition, by filing counter, stating that the 1st respondent-wife obtained divorce from him, by pronouncing ‘khula’, and thereafter he got married to another woman and thus he is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondents. Before the lower Court, on behalf of the respondents-petitioners, the 1st respondent-wife was examined as P.W.1 and her eldest son was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant- husband, the appellant himself was examined as R.W.1 and one Syed Naseeruddin was examined as R.W.2. The learned trial Judge, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusions that the marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent is still subsisting and that it is the duty of the appellant to maintain the respondents, and having regard to the status of the appellant being Government employee and the requirements of the respondents, the learned Judge directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) each per month to respondents 2 and 3 herein, from the date of petition till they attain majority, and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the 1st respondent, from the date of petition, towards their maintenance, and the rest of the claim was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband preferred the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-husband and the respondents and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- husband is that the appellant herein has been paying the school fee of the children and he has paid about Rs.24,000/- for each child in the last two years and it is only recently, his salary has been increased due to implementation of 4th Pay Commission and therefore grant of maintenance at the rate of 4,000/- per month to each child and Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife is on the higher side. On the previous occasion, the learned counsel for the appellant produced the salary certificate of the appellant, dated 11.11.2010, to show that the salary of the appellant is only Rs.2,860/-. However, it appears that the said salary certificate was not produced by the appellant before the lower Court. A perusal of the same would make it clear that it was obtained for the purpose of ration card. In fact, the said salary certificate further discloses that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was being deducted towards G.P.F. As the respondents disputed the said salary certificate of the appellant, we directed the learned Standing Counsel for Railways to get latest salary certificate of the appellant and he accordingly produced the same. A perusal of the same would show that the gross salary of the appellant is Rs.23,700/- and, after deductions, his net salary is Rs.17,800/- per month. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is drawing a net salary of Rs.17,800/- per month and has the capacity and means to pay maintenance to the wife and children. It is further represented that the 2nd respondent herein has become major and thus at present the appellant is paying maintenance only to respondents 1 and 3. Even if he has paid any amount towards the school fee of the children, it is his moral obligation to provide education to his children. Moreover, the lower Court found that the children were studying in Junior College of Railway Department and the employees of the Railway Department are provided free education in that college. Be that as it may, without entering into all those aspects, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, has awarded the maintenance to the respondents herein at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to each child and Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife, which needs no interference by this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The Family Court Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA _______________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 7th December, 2010 IBL