IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.30 of 2010 Between: Avasarala Venkata Ratnaji rao. … Petitioner And Avasarala Rama Lakshmi Mangatayaru … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 30 OF 2010 ORDER:- The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 13.08.2009 dismissing A.S.No.75 of 2006, confirming the judgment and decree of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada dated 27.02.2006 in O.S.No.556 of 2003, awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the plaintiff, wife of the defendant. The factum of marriage between the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff is not in dispute and the respondent filed a pauper O.P.No.140 of 2002, which was later numbered as O.S.No.556 of 2003, seeking maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. The appellant filed O.P.No.177 of 1987 for restitution of conjugal rights and later withdrew the same and filed O.P.No.177 of 1993, seeking divorce and the same was dismissed by the trial court, which has also been confirmed in C.M.A.No.1160 of 1999 by this Court. Therefore, their marital status has not been altered. The appellant contended that the respondent was working and earning something, but he has not led any evidence to substantiate his plea as to the earning capacity of the respondent. Further, it was brought on record that the appellant is drawing gross salary of Rs.16,615/- by working as a teacher and therefore, the trial court awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance as against the claim of Rs.4,000/- per month, claimed by the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.75 of 2006, in which the respondent filed cross- objections. The lower appellate court after reanalysing the evidence dismissed the appeal as well as the cross- objections. Concurrent findings of fact reached by both the courts below on appreciation of evidence, does not give raise to any question of law much less substantial question of law to admit the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 5th March 2010 lmv