THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S.No.2290 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is filed by the appellant-husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2011 passed by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in O.S.No.13 of 1999. The appellant-husband is the defendant and the respondent- wife is the plaintiff before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit viz., O.S.No.13 of 1999 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the defendant-husband. She stated that she married the defendant on 2.4.1980 at Visakhapatnam and they have no children and they lived happily for two years after marriage and thereafter, the defendant subjected her to physical and mental cruelty demanding additional dowry and he had driven her from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and neglected to maintain her and he married another woman. It is stated that earlier she filed MC No.55 of 1986 and the same was allowed directing the defendant to pay her maintenance at Rs.150/- per month, and later, she filed M.P.No.156 of 1995 for enhancement and accordingly, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.400/- p.m., from 1.8.1996 and as the defendant failed to pay the maintenance promptly, she filed MP No.144 of 1998 for recovery of arrears of maintenance and the same is pending. While so, the plaintiff-wife filed the present suit stating that the cost of living has increased considerably and it is difficult for her to meet her daily needs with the meager amount of Rs.400/- p.m. The defendant-husband filed the written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and stating that he tried for compromise, but the plaintiff expressed her unwillingness to live with him and that she executed a document before caste elders permitting him to remarry another woman and therefore, he married another woman and has been living with her. He further stated that the plaintiff is running a tailoring shop and earning Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per day and she owns 3 sewing machines and that he gets Rs.2,000/- per month and he has to look after his father, wife, and three children and the maintenance enhanced in the MC is sufficient to meet her needs and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Before the Court below, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and the defendant examined himself as D.W.1. No documentary evidence was adduced by either of the parties. On appreciation of evidence on record, the Court below decreed the suit in part granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m., which is inclusive of the maintenance amount granted to her in MP No.156 of 1995 in MC No.55/86, from the date of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant-husband filed the present appeal. Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant- defendant gets net salary of Rs.4,000/- and he has to maintain his second wife, children and his parents and that the maintenance awarded in the suit is excessive and exorbitant and therefore, the same needs to be reduced, whereas the Counsel for the respondent- wife contends that the appellant is working in Shipyard and he gets between Rs.9,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per month towards salary, and the maintenance awarded by the Court below is reasonable and needs no reduction. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and they have no children and that she is living separately and the defendant married another woman and has been living with her. The defendant is working in Shipyard and his monthly salary is between Rs.9,000/- and Rs.10,000/- p.m. The defendant except stating before the Court below as well as before this Court that he is getting net salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m., did not adduce any material to disprove the contention of the plaintiff that he is drawing salary between Rs.9,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per month. However, considering the cost of living and rising inflation, we feel that the amount awarded by the Court below is not excessive and exorbitant, and therefore, the judgment of the Court below needs no interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Dated: 30.11.2011 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S. No.2290 OF 2002 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 30.11.2011 Nn