IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CMA.506 of 2003 Between: K.Kistaiah @ Krishnaiah ..... APPELLANT AND K.Laxmi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CMA.506 of 2003 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The appellant is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed suit in O.S.188/1998 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration that she is legally wedded wife of the appellant. The appellant/husband disputed the marital relationship. But, however, the Judge, Family Court based on oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of respondent/wife and as the appellant failed to examined himself and no documentary evidence has been adduced, decreed the suit holding that the respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the appellant, and as the appellant himself rejected and neglected the respondent/wife he is liable to pay maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month during her life time or till the appellant/husband takes the respondent/wife for marital life. Heard both the counsel. The point that arises for consideration is whether the respondent is legally wedded wife of the appellant, and if so, the maintenance as awarded by the court below is justified. In support of the contention of the respondent/wife she herself examined as PW 1 and stated that her marriage took place with the appellant on 25.02.1965 as per the Hindu laws and caste customs at her parents house and both of them lived together happily for some time, but they have not blessed with any issues. Therefore, the appellant started torturing the respondent since May 1988 and neglected her even without providing food and he used to beat her mercilessly. Ultimately, in July 1998 the appellant necked out respondent/wife from his house. Lagnapatrika was marked as Ex.A1. When she was tortured by the appellant she gave a complaint before the A.P.Women’s Association, Hyderabad where the appellant has given an undertaking that he will treat the respondent properly without any harassment. The appellant did not enter into the box and no rebuttal evidence has been adduced. On the other hand, it is stated that the appellant had extra marital relationship with one Chandrakala and had three children through her, and therefore, the appellant contended that the maintenance amount awarded by the Court below at the rate of Rs.1,500/- is excessive. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, as the respondent/wife only sought for a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of the appellant and asked for maintenance. Except approaching the A.P.Womens Association, Hyderabad, the respondent/wife did not choose to initiate any criminal action against the appellant. We do not see any justification on the part of the appellant in expressing his inability to pay maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, as awarded by the Court below. We do not see any merits in the appeal, and accordingly the CMA is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 25.06.2010 Dsr