//
you're reading...
legal issues

interim maintenance =Though a lengthy counter is filed, the appellant never stated about his actual salary received by him and no document is filed to that effect. Therefore, the Court below was of the opinion that though there was no record with regard to the rental income from the house, the appellant herein has not filed any document to prove that he is not drawing a net salary of Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the Court below has taken into account that the appellant herein has been drawing net salary of Rs.75,000/- per month. However, the Court below granted interim maintenance @Rs.3,500/- only per month to each of the respondents, totaling Rs.10,500/- per month from the date of petition pending disposal of the main OP. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interim maintenance granted by the Court below is exorbitant and excessive. We do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

a Balance icon

Image via Wikipedia

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

&
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

F.C.A.No.145 of 2011

Between:

Bathula Naga Veerabhadra Ganga Rajesh

….. APPELLANT

AND

Bathula Vijaya Durga Bhavani and 2 others

…..RESPONDENTS

The Court made the following:


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

&
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

F.C.A.No.145 of 2011

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

Appellant is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of Respondents Nos.2 and 3.  The respondents filed O.P.42/2011 on the file of the Family-cum-District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry under Sec.7 of the Family Court seeking maintenance @Rs.30,000/- per month to all of them pending disposal of the main O.P.  The respondents also filed I.A.463/2011 for grant of interim maintenance @Rs.15,000/- per month to all the respondents herein i.e. @Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondent.  It is stated that the marriage of the appellant herein with the 1st respondent was performed on 30.05.2002 and the marriage was consummated.  Out of wedlock, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were born on 10.03.2003 and 01.01.2005.  At the time of marriage, the parents of the 1st respondent gave cash of Rs.5,70,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards lanchanams, apart from gold and silver ornaments to the appellant.  It is further stated that respondents Nos.2 and 3 have been admitted in school and the school authorities have demanded donations of Rs.1,00,000/- each.  The appellant is working in a reputed company and is drawing net salary of Rs.75,000/- per month, besides that, he is provided with a car and residential accommodation, and he is in a position to pay the maintenance, as required by the respondents herein.

A counter was filed by the appellant herein before the Court below denying the petition averments with regard to the cash gift, Rs.1,00,000/- lanchanams, 20 tulas gold and 5 kgs silver ornaments etc.  He also denied the averments with regard to his net salary of Rs.75,000/- with rent free accommodation, car etc. and stated that those allegations are baseless allegations.  It is stated that the claim of maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month as well as the interim maintenance @Rs.15,000/- per month are also baseless.

Though a lengthy counter is filed, the appellant never stated about his actual salary received by him and no document is filed to that effect.  Therefore, the Court below was of the opinion that though there was no record with regard to the rental income from the house, the appellant herein has not filed any document to prove that he is not drawing a net salary of Rs.75,000/-.  Therefore, the Court below has taken into account that the appellant herein has been drawing net salary of Rs.75,000/- per month.  However, the Court below granted interim maintenance @Rs.3,500/- only per month to each of the respondents, totaling Rs.10,500/- per month from the date of petition pending disposal of the main OP.   Therefore, it cannot be said that the interim maintenance granted by the Court below is exorbitant and excessive.  We do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order.

The FCA is accordingly dismissed.  However, the arrears of the interim maintenance, as granted by the Court below, payable from the date of petition till July, 2011, shall be paid by the appellant within four weeks from today, and continue to pay the future interim maintenance at the same rate by 10th of every succeeding month, commencing from August, 2011.  The amounts, if any, paid by the appellant earlier, shall be given credit to the amounts to be paid by him.  No order as to costs.

___________________

V.ESWARAIAH,J

________________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

Dated: 08.07.2011

Dsr

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,476 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: