THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 3365 of 2003 O R D E R: This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 41 of 2000 dated 28.7.2003 on the file of learned Principal Distirct Judge, Kurnool, whereunder the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs under Section 18 and 20 of the Act and Section 7(1)(a) of the Family Courts Act against the defendant for grant of past maintenance of Rs.1,08,000/- and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondents-plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively and to grant a charge for the suit claim over the plaint schedule properties, was decreed partly as under: “i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; i i ) that the maintenance be and is hereby granted a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month towards maintenance of the second plaintiff from the date of suit i.e. 24.6.1999 till the second plaintiff attains majority and if the second plaintiff is unable to maintain herself even after attaining majority, she is entitled for the same till her marriage recoverable from the defendant. iii) that the second plaintiff be and is hereby also entitled for the charge over the plaint schedule properties to recover the maintenance; iv) that the claim of the first plaintiff be and is hereby dismissed; and v) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.2002/- and the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.3672/- towards the costs of the suit”. Appellant is the defendant and respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff is wife and 2nd plaintiff is daughter of the defendant. The defendant married 1st plaintiff on 29.4.1994 at Kalvabugga temple as per Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was consummated on the same day. As such, 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and 2nd plaintiff is their daughter. Thereafter, some differences arose between the parties and they are living separately. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the present suit for maintenance under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act and Section 7(1)(a) of the Family Courts Act, claiming maintenance as noticed above. Defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is stated that 1st plaintiff is a highly educated woman and earning decent salary. She is M.A. in Telugu literature and a qualified Telugu Pandit. She passed typewriting higher in both English and Telugu. For some years she worked in Ramakrishna Vidyalayam, Maddur Nagar, Kurnool, as a teacher on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. She worked in Collectorate, Kurnool on monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- and now she is working in a private firm on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. She has put 2nd plaintiff in Sudha Public School, Maddur Nagar, Kurnool. She owns considerable properties in Loddipalle village and she has disposed of her land in Loddipalle for Rs.2,00,000/- and doing money lending business with that amount. She has invested Rs.50,000/- in Fixed Deposit in a Schedule Bank. Besides, she is having gold ornaments also. Therefore, she is not at all depending upon anybody for maintenance of herself and her child. The defendant could not meet her unreasonable demands, therefore, stopped going to her house since May, 1999. Immediately, she filed the present suit with false allegations. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any maintenance and the suit is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. After a detail consideration of the entire evidence on record, trial Court gave findings, on all counts, in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, as noticed above. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant strenuously contended that the Court below grossly erred in granting monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to 2nd plaintiff, which is excessive. The appellant is not having any share in the properties situated at Thernakal village of Devarakonda Mandal as the properties were partitioned among the brothers in the year 1990 and the appellant gave up his rights in those properties by receiving cash of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the Court below erred in creating charge over the properties. Further, the Court below has not considered the aspect that he was paying Rs.500/- per month to 2nd plaintiff towards maintenance. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. Heard both sides. The relationship between 1st plaintiff and the defendant is not denied and it is also not denied that second plaintiff born out of the wedlock between plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that 1st plaintiff has means to maintain herself and, therefore, this aspect was not properly looked into by the trial Court and even otherwise, 2nd plaintiff is not entitled for maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month. In fact, he was paying Rs.500/- per month for her maintenance. Admittedly, appellant is an employee in L.I.C. of India and he was working as clerk-cum-cashier as on the date of filing of the suit. He must be drawing a salary of atleast Rs.20,000/- as of today. The Court below observed that since 1st plaintiff is not insisting maintenance for herself, she is not entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and held accordingly. Thus, the trial Court itself has not granted any maintenance to 1st plaintiff. Further, the appellant- defendant himself admitted 2nd plaintiff was born to 1st plaintiff through him. Thus, having admitted that plaintiff No.2 is his daughter through plaintiff No.1, appellant-defendant ought not to have taken such a plea of denial as to maintenance of his own daughter. Even otherwise, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the maintenance granted by the trial Court is very reasonable and cannot be said to be either excessive or arbitrary. In so far as creating charge over the plaint schedule properties is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that those properties are not his properties and they belong to his father and he has no properties whatsoever. If that is so, appellant need not bother about creating such a charge and it is for such third parties to avail the remedies, if any, available under the law. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is required by this Court into the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 28.7.2003. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 23-7-2010. MVB.