THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.No.135 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both sides. Though the matter is listed under the caption “interlocutory”, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, having heard the matter in detail, the appeal itself is taken up and disposed of by this judgment. This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 10.02.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, allowing F.C.O.P.No.926 of 2007, filed by the respondents herein, under Sections 18(1) and 20(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, praying for grant of maintenance from the appellant herein. The appellant is the husband of the first respondent and the second respondent is their son. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the appellant will be referred to as “the husband”, the first respondent as “the wife” and the second respondent as “the son”. The Court below having considered the matter on merits and also having gone into the evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, eventually directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the son towards maintenance. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that substantial property worth of not less than Rs.10 lakhs had been purchased in the name of the wife. This fact has been admitted by the wife also during the course of recording her evidence. Therefore, what is obvious is that the husband had already created substantial interest in the name of the wife and the son also, naturally, would be the beneficiary of such creation of interest. It is his further contention that the appellant is only a taxi driver and his earnings are very meager and therefore, the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Court below to the respondents herein has to be reduced. We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband as regards the occupation of the appellant, it is to be seen that there is no substantial proof in that regard. Therefore, the Court below also did not believe that version. It is also not discernible as to how the husband would purchase such a substantial property in the name of the wife, if really, he were a taxi driver. Hence, what is obvious is that there is something more what actually meets the eye. At the same time, we also cannot see anything as regards the actual social and financial status of the husband. Therefore, going by just a little guesswork, we feel it expedient to reduce the amount of maintenance granted to the wife and the son. Accordingly, we deem it expedient to fix a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to the son as just and reasonable amount towards maintenance. In view of the said quantification, we do not find anything left out to adjudicate further in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be disposed of. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 23rd August 2010 dr