THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 1266 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 21.04.2003 passed in O.S. No. 111 of 2001 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondents herein, by granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month each to respondents 2 to 5, payable by the appellant herein, from the date of filing of suit i.e. from 08.03.2000. The appellant and respondent No.1 are the husband and wife, while respondent Nos.2 to 5 are their children. The appellant-husband filed O.P. No. 115 of 2000 seeking decree of divorce from respondent No.1, and custody of children, whereas respondent No.1-wife filed O.P. No. 180 of 2000, for restitution of conjugal rights. She along with her children, namely respondent Nos. 2 to 5 also filed the present suit O.S. No. 111 of 2001, praying to grant them maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each per month. The Court below, having considered the contention of the respective parties in the light of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, dismissed O.P. No. 115 of 2000, filed by the appellant-husband for divorce and allowed O.P. No. 180 of 2000, filed by respondent No.1-wife for restitution of conjugal rights, and decreed O.S. No. 111 of 2001, in part, granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month, each to respondents 2 to 5, payable by the appellant herein, from the date of filing of suit i.e. from 08.03.2000, by common order dated 21.04.2003. Aggrieved by such grant of maintenance in O.S. No. 111 of 2001, the appellant-husband filed the present appeal. The appellant also filed appeals in A.S. Nos. 2805 of 2003 and 3050 of 2003 against the orders in O.P. Nos. 180 of 2000 and 115 of 2000 respectively, allowing the petition of respondent No.1-wife for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissing his petition for divorce, but however, today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought permission of the Court, to withdraw those appeals, and accordingly those appeals, by separate orders passed by this Court, were dismissed as withdrawn. The matter came up for consideration on several occasions. This Court conducted reconciliation proceedings, and pursuant to which the appellant came forward to settle the issue amicably, and accordingly he filed an affidavit on 09.02.2011 in C.M.A. No. 2805 of 2003, stating that he is prepared to deposit Rs.50,000/- each in the names of his two daughters i.e. respondents 2 to 3, and also transfer the auto rickshaw owned by him in the name of his sons, if they so desire. In the affidavit, he also stated that he is prepared to maintain the respondents, if they join him. However, respondent No.1-wife vehemently opposed to join the appellant and live with him, and she having taken considerable time to express her views, ultimately declined to accept the proposal put forward by the appellant in his affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first daughter of the appellant i.e. the 2nd respondent became major; that she is working in a public sector undertaking and hence there is no need to pay any maintenance to her. She further submitted that the appellant is a street hawker in hosiery, and in view of the proposed construction of metro railway, the appellant is likely to lose his livelihood, and in which event, he will be unable to maintain himself, and thus he would not be in a position to pay maintenance to the respondents as ordered by the Court below. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order under appeal and submitted that the Court below, having considered the matter in detail, passed a reasoned order and no interference is warranted therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under appeal. A perusal of the order under appeal makes it clear that the Court below, having considered the occupation of the appellant-husband and keeping in view the cost of living at the relevant point of time, granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs.500/- each to the children, which having regard to present cost of living, we are of the opinion, is quite reasonable, and needs no interference by this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the appellant has two unmarried daughters namely respondents 2 and 3, and he has a duty to marry them off, and considering the stand taken by the appellant in the affidavit filed by him before this Court, referred to supra, the appellant shall deposit Rs.50,000/- each in the names of his two daughters, namely respondents 2 and 3, within a period of one week, and shall also pay the arrears of maintenance, payable by him to them, in pursuance of the order under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 21st February, 2011 IBL