HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.74 OF 2001 Dt.27.4.2010 Between: Vempati Sankara Narayana Kumar ..Appellant And Vempati Satyavathi ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.74 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Appellant herein is the husband of the respondent wife and the respondent obtained a decree of divorce against the appellant on the grounds of cruelty and adultery and the said decree has become final, as the husband has not chosen to question the same. The respondent wife filed O.S.No.16 of 1999 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for payment of maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and to pay arrears of Rs.35,000/- for seven months from January, 1998 to July, 1998 and the said O.S. was filed in April, 1999. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree, dated 3.1.2001, for payment of maintenance amount in favour of the plaintiff at Rs.2500/- per month from January, 1998 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the husband. 2. Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the court below. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant married the plaintiff on 9.5.1993 at Visakhapatnam and after the marriage they were settled at Vizianagaram town. While so, the defendant started and began to run a residential school in the name and style of “Trisula Ramana Tutorials” at their residence in Balajinagar, Vizianagaram Town, and the plaintiff also helped in running and developing the school. After the marriage, they lead marital life happily for one year and later disputes developed, as the defendant began to move closely with a woman by name Nakka Roja and began to ill-treat the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendant was claiming that he has married the said concubine Nakka Roja in September, 1997 and the mother-in-law of the plaintiff was also supported the defendant and the defendant assaulted the plaintiff and forcibly she was driven out of the house on 24.1.1998 and therefore the plaintiff went to her mother’s house at Visakhapatnam. It is stated that as the defendant has deserted the plaintiff and refused to maintain, she is entitled to seek maintenance with a charge on the property of the defendant. When the plaintiff has decided to take steps to seek maintenance from the defendant, he immediately filed O.P.No.6 of 1998 for restitution of conjugal rights in order to avoid maintenance amount, but the defendant bluntly refused to pay the maintenance amount. When the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant on 17.4.1998 and asked for payment of maintenance, she was again beaten and driven out of the house and she went to the I Town Police Station, Vizianagaran and gave complaint and she got treated to the injuries in the Government Head Quarters Hospital and the wound certificate with regard to the injuries was also given. It is stated that they have threatened to withdraw the police complaint stating that if she does not withdraw the complaint, she has to face with dire consequences. It is stated that the defendant is an income tax assessee and having decent income derived from Trisula Ramana Tutorials at Vizianagaram and there are about 150 non-residential students and each student is paying Rs.250/- per month and there are residential students of 70 to 80 persons, paying Rs.700/- per month. The defendant is paying salaries to three Teachers and three Aayas and the total salaries will not exceed Rs.3000/- and the defendant is the owner of the school building. The defendant is having three more houses and there was an income tax raid recently and they found Rs.8,00,000/- in cash with him and to avoid complications, he paid Rs.2,00,000/- in the voluntary disclosure scheme of the Income Tax Department in order to close the income tax case relating to undisclosed income and the overall monthly income of the defendant will not be less than Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the defendant is having three houses and a vacant site in addition to the school building and bank deposits. Accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. 3. A detailed written statement has been filed denying the allegations relating to ill-treatment, desertion, second marriage and the alleged beating by him. The averment relating to the income derived from the tutorial school is also denied. He also denied about the existence of three houses and also the so- called raid and payment of income tax under voluntary disclosure scheme. The defendant admitted that he is running a small school and getting a meager income and with that amount he has to maintain his family consisting of his old aged mother and himself. It is stated that he is running a school and some times there will be students and some times there will not be any students in the school and at times there is lot of chance of getting loss in running the school. It is stated that the plaintiff is working as a Teacher in Railway Montessori Anurao School at Visakhapatnam and drawing a salary of Rs.2000/- per month, which is more than sufficient for her maintenance, and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the issue before the court below was whether the plaintiff is entitled for the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. 4. As the suit relates to payment of maintenance alone, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to consider the evidence relating to the income alone, as there are no disputes with regard to the decree obtained by the wife and they are living separately and the grounds that were taken in the divorce O.P. by the wife that she was only deserted and the respondent was cruel towards her are established. In so far as the income is concerned, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant is earning Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- from the tutorial school and also income from household property as he is having three houses at Balajinagar and he is an income tax assessee and the income tax authorities raided the tutorials run by the defendant and defendant paid Rs.3,00,000/- under voluntary disclosure scheme and therefore she stated that she is entitled for maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. 5. There was no attempt on the part of the defendant to rebut the oral deposition made by the plaintiff with regard to the income derived from the school and the rental income. P.W.2, mother of the plaintiff, states about the strained relations alone. P.W.3 also states about the strained relations and disputes among the parties. It is stated that the plaintiff is depending on her mother who is an employee in the railways and therefore she is entitled for maintenance amount. Defendant got himself examined as R.W.1 and he has not stated anything about the income said to have been derived by him through the tutorial school as well as the rental income. Therefore, the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff made in the plaint and the oral deposition by the plaintiff was not at all rebutted. We have perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the judgment impugned. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the maintenance amount as ordered by the court below at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month is just and reasonable. The plaintiff has clearly stated that the defendant is running a tutorial school and derived fairly good income apart from the income received on rents. The said averments made by the plaintiff in the oral evidence were not at all rebutted. There is no evidence adduced with regard to the alleged income said to have been derived by the plaintiff wife. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the maintenance amount granted by the court below at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month is just and reasonable. We do not see any merit in the appeal warranting interference of this Court. There is no infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the judgment impugned. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J. 27.4.2010 kpr