THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. NO. 1770 OF 1999 DT. 12.7.2011 Between: A Bhaskara Raju … Petitioner And Smt A Kalpana … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.B.Ramamohan Reddy Counsel for respondent: Sri V.Venkataramana The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. NO. 1770 OF 1999 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1999 in O.S. No. 38 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder the Family Court ordered the defendant/appellant herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to the plaintiff/respondent herein from the date of filing the suit. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below, for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff is wife of the defendant. Their marriage was performed on 16.4.1992 at Arya Vysya Abhudaya Sadan, Secunderabad, according to Hindu rites and caste customs. The plaintiff alleges that at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry and presented 40 tulas of gold, 2 Kgs of silver, furniture and household articles worth Rs.55,000/-as demanded by the parents of the defendant. Subsequently also on the occasion of Diwali, customary presentations were made to the defendant. After the marriage, they lived together at the house of her husband. The plaintiff alleges that sister of the defendant used to call her ‘Godralu’ since she did not begot children. It is also alleged that her in-laws asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents for development of their business and since she expressed her helplessness to bring the said amount, she was driven out from her in-laws house and that she is not in a position to maintain herself. The case of the defendant is that he filed a suit in O.P. No. 437 of 1996 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights and the plaintiff filed a criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore the Court below recorded a finding that both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for breaking of the marriage. Therefore, the defendant contends that since the plaintiff is also responsible for breaking of the marriage, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Though several grounds were raised in the appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that since the Court below has recorded a finding that both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for breaking of the marriage, the wife-plaintiff is not entitled to maintenance. Heard the learned counsel for defendant-appellant and learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that even if the fault is attributable to both, husband and wife for breaking the marital relationship, then also wife is entitled to receive the maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and she cannot be deprived of the same. Only in a case where the fault is solely attributable to wife, then husband may contend that in the circumstances he is not liable to pay maintenance to his wife. Further, the maintenance awarded by the Court below is only Rs.1500/- per month, which cannot be said to exorbitant, warranting interference of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any reason warranting interference of this Court. The order of the Court below is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________ V ESWARAIAH,J ________________ B CHANDRA KUMAR,J DATE: 12.7.11 TVK 149 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. NO. 1770 OF 1999 Date: 12.7.2011