*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Second Appeal No.849 of 2008 % Dated 26.12.2011 # Vytla Prema Kumar. ….Appellant $ Vytla Annapurna and others. ….Respondents ! Counsel for the appellant : Smt K.Sesha Rajayam ^ Counsel for respondents : Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NRASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.849 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the husband of the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The respondents filed O.S.No.473 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, against the appellant for maintenance by invoking the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). They pleaded that the appellant neglected to maintain them, though he is possessed of valuable assets and substantial income. The manner, in which the family relations got deteriorated, was mentioned in brief. The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that it is on account of the adamant attitude of the 1st respondent and her father that they are living separately. He pleaded that though he made repeated efforts to live together, the same did not fructify. He denied the plea of the respondents as to his income and assets. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 29.03.2004 awarding a sum of Rs.600/- per month to each of the respondents as maintenance. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.36 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The appeal was allowed through judgment dated 12.06.2008 by enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,000/- per month each to the respondents. Hence, this second appeal. Smt. K.Sesha Rajyam, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the 1st respondent failed to prove that the appellant is responsible for their living separately from him and that the lower appellate Court proceeded as though the appellant is responsible for the present state of affairs. She contends that though her client made repeated efforts to ensure that himself and the respondents live tighter, the same did not fructify on account of the adamant attitude of the father of the 1st respondent. She contends that the source of income of the appellant is limited and he cannot afford to pay the enhanced amount of maintenance. Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the very fact that his clients are living separately from the appellant discloses that the atmosphere was not congenial and that the lower appellate Court has enhanced the compensation duly taking into account the necessities of the respondents on the one hand and the resources of the appellant on the other hand. The suit was filed by the respondents for the exclusive relief of maintenance against the appellant at Rs.2,000/- per month, for each of them. It was opposed by the appellant herein by raising several contentions. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration viz., the plaintiffs are entitled to seek maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month each, totaling to Rs.6,000/- per month from the defendant. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1 and her father deposed as P.w.2. Another witness deposed as P.W.3. They filed Exs.A.1 to A.3, the sale deeds said to have been executed in favour of the appellant herein. On behalf of the appellant, he deposed as D.W.1 and another witness was examined as D.W.2. He filed Exs.B.1 to B.5. Out of them, Exs.B.1 to B.4 are the sale deeds said to have been executed by P.Ws. 1 to 3 in favour of the third parties. Ex.D.5 is the certificate issued by the panchayat secretary. The trial Court decreed the suit in part by awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to each of the respondents. Not satisfied with that, they filed A.S.No.36 of 2004. The lower appellate Court framed two points for its consideration viz., (1) whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial Court as just and reasonable and (2) if so, at what rate it can be granted and the appeal was allowed. The Act stipulates different parameters for granting maintenance to wife of an individual on the one hand, and children on the other hand. Section 18 of the Act stipulates seven circumstances, under which a wife can claim maintenance against her husband. It is only on proof of those circumstances, that the wife can claim maintenance. Section 20 of the Act, which deals with the maintenance of children and aged parents, is not so stringent. This distinction needs to be kept in mind. The 1st respondent could have claimed compensation as of right, if only she proved that she has been deserted by the appellant. The evidence on record was very weak in this regard. In fact, the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the 1st respondent is unable to substantiate the specific grounds of harassment said to have been meted out by the appellant. However, a meager maintenance was awarded only to enable her to meet the minimum expenditure. A specific observation was made to the effect that if higher amount is awarded as maintenance, that would lead to further deterioration of relations. The lower appellate Court did not reverse this finding. It has concentrated mainly on the assets that are said to have been held by the appellant. The appellant flatly denied the allegation as to the possession of properties. Even if he can be said to be possessing valuable properties, the obligation to pay maintenance to the wife would arise, if only any of the grounds mentioned in Section 18 of the Act are proved. With a view to ensure that the family of the appellant comprising of himself, his wife-1st respondent and children- respondents 2 and 3 live in harmony, this Court had undertaken counseling. All of them agreed to live together and infact proceeded from the Court to the house of the appellant unitedly. The appellant filed an affidavit detailing the developments that have taken place within one month from the date of very uniting. In candid terms, he stated that the father of the 1st respondent herein i.e., P.W.2 has harassed him to the maximum and the same resulted in separation of the family once again. This Court has observed the conduct of P.W.2, when counseling was undertaken. He appears to be interested more in the property of the appellant, than the welfare of his daughter and her children. Being not so wise person, the 1st respondent is not able to take any independent decision and she is totally under the influence of her father. As the things stand now, the situation cannot be helped. Strictly speaking, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay maintenance, since it is on account of no fault of him that the respondents are living separately. However, taking into account the fact that it is his responsibility to educate the children, a sum of Rs.1500/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3 can be awarded as maintenance. To ensure minimum maintenance for her, the 1st respondent can be awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. Therefore, the second appeal is partly allowed directing that the appellant shall be under obligation to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,500/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3 from the date of the decree passed by the trial Court. The amount that is already deposited shall be given credit. This Court is specifically denying the arrears from the date of filing of the suit, because of the adamant attitude exhibited by the 1st respondent and her father. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 26.12.2011 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NRASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.849 of 2008 Date: 26.12.2011 JSU