HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No:1116 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment dated 29.6.2011 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2007 by the learned IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor, confirming the Decree & Judgment dated 24.10.2006 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, in O.S.No.621 of 2004. The appellant herein is the 1st defendant and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd defendant before the Court below. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.621 of 2004 as an indigent person for (a) recovery of maintenance of Rs.36,000/- for 18 months from January, 2000 to July, 2002 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and for future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the month of August, 2002 continuously during the life time of the plaintiff; (b) for creating a charge over the landed properties mentioned in B schedule for recovery of maintenance from the first defendant; and (c) for costs of the suit. The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant and their marriage was performed on 22.1.1986 as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Mogileswara Swamy temple, Mogili. After marriage, the plaintiff joined her husband-1st defendant and lived with him for about 7 years and thereafter, the 1st defendant used to ill-treat her without any reasonable cause and he got illicit intimacy with one K. Rajeswari of Nallangadukothur even prior to her marriage and even after the marriage, due to which, the 1st defendant totally neglected and deserted the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff went to her parents’ house and thereafter, in spite of several mediations, the 1st defendant did not agree to take back the plaintiff and he also refused to maintain her. It is stated that the 1st defendant got landed properties mentioned in plaint B schedule and he is getting annual income of Rs.20,000/- apart from monthly salary. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming maintenance. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement as follows: He did not deny the relationship with the plaintiff. He stated that he suffered a lot in the hands of the plaintiff due to non-co-operation and immoral acts of the plaintiff and the plaintiff previously filed O.P.No.46 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for dissolution of marriage on the ground that she was not liking him and she married him due to pressure of her parents. There were misunderstandings between them since 1992 and the plaintiff is away from his company. The plaintiff admitted in her petition that she received Rs.42,000/- cash from the 1st defendant in the presence of elders towards present, past and future maintenance and she executed a document to that effect and also agreed to withdraw the divorce petition. She lent that amount to outsiders and getting interest at the rate of 24% p.a., as income and she got landed properties and doing agricultural coolie work. Before the Court below, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and D.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the defendants. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below having observed that the plaintiff established all the ingredients, which are required for grant of maintenance and she is entitled to receive maintenance, decreed the suit directing the 1st defendant to pay of Rs.36,000/- towards maintenance and also monthly maintenance for one year i.e., Rs.24,000/- within three months from the date of judgment and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- throughout her life time; and also the Court fee payable on the claim of maintenance of Rs.60,000/- to the Government. Hence, the 1st defendant carried the married in appeal and the lower appellate Court having concurred with the findings of the Court below, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant preferred the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. The undisputed facts are that the appellant is the husband of the 1st respondent and that they lived together for some time. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the suit seeking maintenance from her husband. In a case of this nature, it is to be examined as to whether the husband having got sufficient means neglected his wife and whether the wife has any means to maintain herself. Both the Courts below, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and D.Ws, came to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is residing with her parents since 2000 and that the appellant has got properties and he has sufficient means but neglected to maintain the respondent. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the wife has got sufficient means to maintain herself is concerned, both the Courts below concurrently found that the appellant has not placed any material to establish the same. The findings arrived at by the Courts below being concurrent, and based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments under appeal. This apart, the second appeal does not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law warranting its admission. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana Dated:13.10.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No:1116 OF 2011 13.10.2011