THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.2653 of 1999 Dated:- 12th July, 2011 Between:- Makara Venkata Rao …Appellant AND Smt Mokara Vara Lakshmi …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.2653 of 1999 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1999 passed in O.S.No.23 of 1998 by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 3. The marriage of the plaintiff – wife and the defendant – husband was solemnized about 18 years back at Ponduru Village of Srikakulam District. They lived happily for some time after marriage in the said village and subsequently shifted to Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that the defendant started ill-treating the plaintiff and that he had kept one Alivelu as mistress and necked out the plaintiff from his house. Then, the plaintiff filed M.C.No.151 of 1995 before the Court below seeking maintenance and the Court below, after due enquiry, ordered the defendant to pay Rs.450/- per month to the plaintiff as maintenance. Contending that she was residing with her mother after she was necked out from the defendant – husband’s house and now, her mother is not in a position to maintain her and that the amount of Rs.450/- granted to her towards maintenance in the earlier proceedings is not sufficient to maintain herself, the plaintiff filed the impugned O.S. before the Court below seeking a direction to the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to her. 4. The defendant – husband filed a written statement contending inter alia that he is only a tailor working under one Nagaraju, master tailor and that his income is not sufficient to maintain his family. His specific case is that he has married one Alivelu after giving divorce to the plaintiff and that he is blessed with three children through his second wife. It is also his case that the plaintiff has constructed a two-portioned slabbed house and getting Rs.1,200/- towards rent and she is also running a tea stall and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. 5. The Court below framed necessary issues for consideration. On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and D.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 6. The Court below, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that even if the plaintiff is a divorced wife, the defendant has to maintain her and holding that the income of the plaintiff is not sufficient to maintain herself and that the amount of Rs.450/- per month awarded towards maintenance to her in the Maintenance Case is meager amount and that the defendant must have been earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month, decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant – husband preferred this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant – defendant Smt. N (P) Anjana Devi submitted that the plaintiff is having a two-portioned slabbed house and getting rents from the same and moreover, since it is alleged that the plaintiff is living in adultery, she is not entitled for maintenance and that the Court below had erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff supported the judgment of the Court below and submitted that the plaintiff is not able to maintain herself with the meager amount of Rs.450/- awarded to her as maintenance in the earlier proceedings and that she has no means to support and maintain herself and that the Court below was right in decreeing the suit in her favour, which needs no interference by this Court. 9. Since it is settled law that a divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance, there is no need to discuss about Ex.B.1 – Divorce Deed dated 27.08.1979 in detail, under which, the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant is said to have been dissolved. It is not in dispute that the defendant has been doing tailoring work. The evidence of the plaintiff reveals that defendant is having a house and that she is residing in one portion and getting rental income from another portion. Having regard to his experience in tailoring work and other evidence on record, the Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the earnings of the plaintiff must be between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. The specific case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is having a two-portioned slabbed house. In support of this contention, he has filed Ex.B.2 – Xerox Copy of the sale deed dated 14.05.1981. Admittedly, the defendant, except filing Ex.B.2, has not examined any witness to prove the said transaction and no satisfactory evidence has been let in by him to show the income derived from the said house or to show that the plaintiff is having sufficient means to maintain herself. A reading of the evidence on record clearly establishes that the defendant has sufficient means to pay maintenance to his wife (plaintiff) and, therefore, we are of the view that the judgment of the Court below needs no interference. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the Court below which is impugned herein. The appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ___________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 12th July, 2011 Bvv