THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR F.C.A. No. 261 of 2010 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed in O.S. No.1 of 2009 by the Judge, Family Court, Medak at Sangareddy. The appellant herein is the defendant in the original suit. The respondent herein is the wife of the appellant and the plaintiff in the said suit. Originally, the respondent filed O.S. No. 22 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking maintenance against the appellant contending that she was married to the appellant about 28 years ago at Sangareddy and that they led happy marital life for some time and blessed with a male child, and that subsequently the appellant herein harassed her and neglected to maintain her and her son. The said suit was decreed on 01.05.1981 awarding Rs.75/- per month towards maintenance. Then she filed another suit in O.S. No.6 of 1990 seeking enhancement of the said maintenance amount and accordingly the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.300/- per month and the appeal preferred against the said enhancement in A.S. No.14 of 1992 by the appellant was dismissed. Now she filed the present suit seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month relying upon the documents Exs.A4 to A10. The appellant filed his written statement admitting that the respondent is his wife. Thus, the status of the respondent was not disputed in the written statement filed by the appellant. However, he pleaded that he was having only Ac.4-00 of land and that it is not fit for cultivation and that his income is not sufficient to pay maintenance. The lower Court, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, has partly decreed the suit enhancing maintenance amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.1000/- per month from the date of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire material on record. A perusal of the record would go to show that the respondent herein claimed enhancement of maintenance basing on Exs.A4 to A10, which are pahanies for the year 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 and encumbrance certificate pertaining to House No.1-2-20, 1-2-20/1 and 1-6-65/1 and ownership certificate issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Medak. The appellant admitted that he owns a house bearing No.1-2-20/1 at Medak. Further, though he denied that he owns three shops in door No.1-6-65/1 at Medak and stated that he got only one shop out of three shops in door No.1-6-65/1 in partition, but he did not file any document in support of his contention. Apart from that, the appellant also admitted in his evidence that his son is running a shop under the name and style Chandana Mens Wear in Door No.1-6-65/1 and that he got Ac.4-00 of land. However, he says that the said land is only a dry land and not fit for cultivation, but he did not file any document in support of his contention. The lower Court, after taking all the said aspects into consideration and over all financial position of the appellant herein and also escalation of cost of living, has rightly enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.1000/- per month and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the respondent herein admitted that she is the second wife of the appellant and therefore she is not the legally wedded wife of the appellant and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance, but, admittedly, the appellant herein did not take such a plea in his written statement filed before the trial Court. Therefore, we do not feel it proper to entertain such a plea in this appeal. The impugned judgment of the lower Court, which is passed on well appreciation of evidence on record, does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, no costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 24.11.2010 Nsr