THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD F.C.A.No.266 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. At the request of both the counsel, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellants i.e., wife and minor child, made a claim before the Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No.621 of 2008 under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, for grant of past and future maintenance. However, before the Court below the respondent/husband remained ex parte. By recording the evidence of the appellant, the learned Family Judge by the impugned order dated 17.10.2008 partly allowed the O.P. directing the respondent/husband to pay Rs.2000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.1000/- per month to the second petitioner, totaling to Rs.3000/- per month towards their maintenance from the date of the said order, while dismissing rest of the claim. Hence this appeal by the appellants claiming a sum of Rs.2,33,500/- for past maintenance from 1.06.2006 to 21.05.2008 @ Rs.5000/- to each appellant. The only claim of the appellants is for further enhancement of maintenance in terms of the relief sought by them before the Court below. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that since it is an ex parte decree, he can be given an opportunity to contest the O.P., on merits. Since the respondent had not given any opportunity, and more so, the appellants themselves are claiming further enhancement in terms of the relief sought by them before the Court below, it would be more feasible to remit the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the order, the Court below did not make any reasons in support of the finding arrived at by it. Therefore, we are of the view that this matter requires to be considered afresh. In the above circumstances, the Family Court Appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment passed by the Family Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J.) 2nd November, 2009 Js.