THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. NO. 190 of 2000 DT. 27.7.2011 Between: Konuthula Ramdas … Petitioner And Smt Konuthula Nirmala and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.V.R. Sharma Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri V.Ch.Naidu Counsel for respondents 2 & 3:None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. NO.190 of 2000 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) The appellant herein is defendant. The plaintiffs-respondents herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 11 of 1998 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam for grant of maintenance of Rs.2000/- to the first plaintiff and Rs.1500/- each to the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The defendant-appellant herein filed a suit in O.S No. 382 of 1998 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (1a) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court below by common judgment dated 16th September, 1999 allowed the suit in O.P. 382 of 1998 granting divorce and decreed the suit in O.S No. 11 of 1998 granting Rs.1000/- per month to the first plaintiff -respondent and Rs.1200/- each to the plaintiffs-respondents 2 and 3 herein, totalling to Rs. 3400/-. It is stated that the judgment and decree passed in O.P. No. 382 of 1998 has become final inasmuch as no appeal has been filed against the said judgment and the present appeal is filed by the husband questioning the maintenance granted by the Court below to the respondents herein. The learned counsel for appellant submits that at the time of passing the judgment and decree, the appellant was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and subsequently he retired from service and presently he is drawing a pension of Rs.6000/- only and unable to pay the maintenance awarded by the Court below. He further submits that the wife-first respondent is having a residential house property at Visakhapatnam gifted by her father and getting rents and is in a position to maintain herself. He further submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, the daughter-third respondent filed a petition in O.P.No. 617 of 2004 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam claiming marriage expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- and the learned Family Court Judge, by order dated 30.4.2007 directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, which was deposited by the petitioner vide receipt No.98 dated 16.7.2007 in the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Thus, it is contended that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam is excessive and appellant is not in a position to pay the same. The learned counsel for appellant further submits that this Court while admitting the appeal by order dated 2.2.2000 in CMP No. 1360 of 2000 granted interim stay subject to appellant depositing Rs.1600/- per month which is being paid by the appellant regularly. He further submits that both the children have now become major and the daughter was got married and they are not entitled to claim any maintenance. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for first respondent and perused the judgment under appeal and the evidence adduced before the Court below. The wife-first respondent herein denied the suggestion of getting rental income from the house property gifted by her father and on the other hand she states that she obtained educational loan from the bank to meet the educational expenses of her children. It is the case of the wife-first respondent that though the appellant was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, however, since the husband has not filed any documentary evidence to show his salary details, the Court below considering the fact that he is working as an Auditor in Indian Navy, fixed his salary as Rs.10,000/- and granted the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1200/- per month each to children, which cannot be said be excessive or arbitrary, warranting interference of this Court. Now coming to the second contention of the learned counsel for appellant that now the children have attained majority and the daughter was got married and they are not entitled to claim maintenance, it is not in dispute that the son would be entitled to maintenance till he attains the majority and the daughter would be entitled to maintenance till she got married and if that be so, it is open for the appellant herein to bring said facts to the notice of the Family Court and seek appropriate relief. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No. 11 of 1998 and the same is hereby confirmed. The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J __________________ B CHANDRA KUMAR,J DATE: 27.7.11 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. NO. 190 of 2000 Date:27.7.2011