THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH A.S.NO.12 OF 2002 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Head both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2001 passed by the court of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in O.S.No.4 of 1997 in granting maintenance to the respondents, who are the wife and daughter of the plaintiff, the present appeal is filed. 3. The appellant is the husband and the respondents 1 and 2 are his wife and daughter respectively. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed maintenance petition claiming maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively. 5. The case of the respondents is that the 1st respondent married the appellant on 5.2.1992 as per Hindu rites and customs at Tirupati and that his father performed the marriage by spending huge amount and that after the marriage they stayed in the house of her father or three days and the marriage was consummated and that they went to the honeymoon and thereafter she joined in the house of the appellant. In the petition she stated the harassment meted out by her at the hands of her father-in-law and sister- in-law and stated that when her husband went for training at Hyderabad for 45 days on 105.1992, the father of the appellant and in her sister-in-law harassed her and sent her out and as the mediations failed, she was constrained to live in her parents house. She also referred to the petitions filed by her and also by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights and for annulment of marriage respectively in O.P.Nos.23/1995 and 24/1995 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Therefore, as the appellant had deserted them and is not maintaining them and ever since the date of the marriage, her husband was working as Engineer in APSEB and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- and neglected them, she filed the suit for maintenance. She also sought for creation of the charge on the suit schedule house belonging to the appellant. 6. On the other hand, the appellant/defendant filed written statement and while admitting the relationship between the parties, stated that the respondent no.1 failed to give conjugal happiness to him and there was no consummation and the 2nd respondent is not born to him and that as she deserted him without any justifiable cause and as she is also working and earning and amount of Rs.9,255/- per month, she is not entitled for any maintenance and with these averments, the suit for maintenance was sought to be dismissed. 7. Based on the material on record and framing appropriate issues and considering the evidence adduced on both the sides, the court below allowed the suit for maintenance and granted maintenance as sought for by them and also created charge over the suit schedule house for realizing the maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. In the connected appeal in C.M.A.No.1964 of 2000 filed by the appellant against the order and decree dated 8.6.2000 passed by the Family court – cum – V Additional District Judge Court, Tirupati in H.M.O.P.No.68/1997 in rejecting to grant decree for divorce under Section 13(`1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, this court found that there was consummation of marriage and that the 2nd respondent herein is born to him and there are also findings operating against him in the earlier O.P.Nos.23 and 24 of 1995 filed by the parties. This court has confirmed the order and decree of the trial court and held that the respondent- wife has not deserted him and that there are no acts of cruelty and unchastity on her part. From the material on record, it is found the appellant had deserted the 1st respondent without any justifiable cause. In these facts and circumstances, the finding of the lower court that there is no safety in the hands of her husband and that the plaintiffs/respondents are justified in living away from her husband and there is justification to claim maintenance, does not warrant any interference. 9. Now coming to the quantum of maintenance, the claim of the respondents is that the respondent is living in a rented house by paying Rs.2,000/- per month as rent apart from electrical and other charges and that the 2nd respondent is studying and they needs money for her education. It is also the case of the respondents that the appelalnt is working as an Engineering in APSEB and getting a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, they sought maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- to the 2nd respondent. She also sought for creation of charge on the suit house of the appellant. On the other hand, the case of the appellant/defendant is that the 1st respondent is working a clerk in LIC at Tirupati and drawing a salary of Rs.9,255/- per month and hence is not entitled for any maintenance. 10. Simply because the 1st respondent is an employee, it cannot be said that she is not entitled for maintenance. It is well settled that the status of both the parties and their financial position and liabilities are required to be considering while granting maintenance. 11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is working as an Engineer in the APSEB and hence he will have sufficiently good salary and in the evidence he admitted that he is owning a house at Tirupati, which he got from his father. Based on these facts and circumstances, the court below found that the appellant is financially sound and he neglected to maintain his wife and daughter. With regard to status of the parties, the case of the 1st respondent is that his father performed their marriage by spending huge amount and the respondent is an educated women and these circumstances lead to the concussion that they are having a decent standard of living. It is the case of the 1st respondent that she is living in a rented house by paying rent of Rs.2,000/- apart from other charges. It is to be noticed that without any sufficient cause, the appellant deserted the respondents and when he is having sound financial capabilities, the respondents should also be enabled to have decent standard of living. Further 2nd respondent is a growing girl child and she will need money for education and for other needs. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the court below by objectively analyzing the circumstances granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively from the date of the order and further as the claim for charge over the suit house was not objected to, the court below rightly created over the suit house to realize the maintenance. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any justification to interfere with the well considered judgment of the court below and the appeal is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ----------------------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO,J ------------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:21.4.2010 AVS