THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD A.S. No. 1839 of 2002 Judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2002, passed by the Family Court, Kurnool, decreeing the suit O.S. No.17 of 2001, filed by the respondent claiming maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment under appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is earning a sum of Rs.1,600/- per month, and this apart, the appellant has been paying Rs.400/- to the respondent towards maintenance, as ordered by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, and considering the meagre salary of Rs.4,702/- per month earned by the appellant, the Family Court, ought not to have awarded Rs.1,500/- as maintenance to the respondent, and it committed an error in decreeing the suit as prayed for by the respondent. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The appellant except stating that the respondent was earning Rs.1,000/- per month as Sweeper and Rs.600/- per month as marriage broker, did not produce any evidence to substantiate the same. Except the amount of Rs.400/-, which the appellant was paying to the respondent towards maintenance, he did not produce any evidence to show that the respondent in spite of having sufficient means for her survival is claiming maintenance. On the other hand, the respondent produced evidence to show that the appellant as Watchman was getting Rs.4,702/- per month, and that except the maintenance of Rs.400/-, which the appellant was paying her as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, she has no other source of income. This apart, the respondent pleaded that the appellant neglected her and that he developed illicit intimacy with another woman and is living with her separately. The appellant though denied the said allegation, but in his cross- examination, admitted that he is having a mistress, and was living with her and also got children through her. Since the appellant, in spite of having means, failed and neglected to maintain the respondent, who is his legally wedded wife, and on the other hand lived with another woman and also had children through her, and considering his obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife, who now became old, and considering his monthly salary of Rs.4,702/-, which he was earning as Watchman, the Family Court felt it appropriate to grant maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month as prayed for by the respondent in the suit, and accordingly decreed the suit as prayed for, and granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent against the appellant. Having regard to present day cost of living and the rising inflation, we are of the considered opinion that the quantum of maintenance of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the Family Court to the respondent cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant, warranting its reduction in appeal. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 10th November, 2011 IBL