Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 283 (AP)

Pilli Rajkumar v. Pilli Siva Kumari

2010-04-09

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 4-3-2010 passed in IA No.686 of 2009 in OP No.1 of 2009 by the Addl. Family Court, Visakhapatnam, allowing the application filed under Section 18 and 20 (2) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.3,000/-to the 2nd respondent towards interim maintenance. 2. There is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties. The petitioner herein is the husband of 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent. The respondents stated that the petitioner deserted them in the month of September, 2007 and since then he has not paid any maintenance to the respondents and the respondents do not have any independent source of income. It was stated that the petitioner was getting a monthly income of Rs.60,000/- per month working as hardware engineer in IBM Solutions, Bangalore and they are entitled for interim maintenance. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application and granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the trial Court erred in not conducting an enquiry into the source of income of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner would be getting income of hardware engineers of his class is fully a guess work. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner lost his job at Bangalore and he is attending to the cases filed by the respondents at Vishakapatnam and therefore the maintenance granted is liable to be reduced. Learned counsel also relied on certain decision in support of his contentions. 4. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner lost his job at Bangalore and he is attending to the cases filed by the respondents at Vishakapatnam and therefore the maintenance granted is liable to be reduced. Learned counsel also relied on certain decision in support of his contentions. 4. Learned singe Judge of this Court in VASILA SIVA PRASAD vs. VASILI LAKSHMI SUSEELA ( 1981 (1) ALT 215 ) at para 9 of the order held thus: - “…..Since the lower Court did not permit the parties to adduce evidence on the question whether the petitioner is having independent income sufficient enough to maintain the respondent and also provide for the necessary legal expenses for her during the pendency of the litigation, I think it desirable that an opportunity should be given to both the parties to adduce such evidence as they deem it necessary in support of their respective contentions, so that the lower Court can come to a correct decision whether Section 24 can be invoked by the respondent as against the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings in the OP, I, therefore remand the matter to the lower Court and the lower Court is directed to permit the parties to adduce such evidence as they deem it necessary and give a decision whether the petitioner is affluent enough and the respondent is entitled to be granted relief under Section 24 as against the petitioner during the pendency of the OP.” 5. A Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in CRP No.5612 of 2008 observed that the quantum of maintenance necessarily has to commensurate to the resources of the income of the husband, without which there cannot be any such fixation on any surmises. 6. The Supreme Court in SIPRA BHATTACHARYA vs. APARES BHATTACHARYA (SCW 2009 AIR 1932) on an application filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance on the ground that there has been increase in the income of the husband, the maintenance was enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.7,000/-. There is no dispute and there cannot be any dispute with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court that in changed circumstances the wife is entitled to enhanced compensation. 7. There is no dispute and there cannot be any dispute with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court that in changed circumstances the wife is entitled to enhanced compensation. 7. But in the instant case, though the petitioner lost his job in Bangalore and has come down to Visahkapatnam and he is not earning Rs.60,000/-, as stated by the 1st respondent, it is not that he is totally unemployed and difficult to get employment. The petitioner is a qualified hardware engineer and he would get handsome income by even working in Vishakapatnam, if not in Bangalore. It is not only moral obligation, but a legal duty cast upon the husband and he is bound to maintain his wife and children. In this age of raising prices and escalation of costs, the interim maintenance granted to the wife and child cannot be said to be on the high side. Maintenance has to be granted so that the wife and child can live in the manner to which they are accustomed. The order passed by the trial Court is a discretionary order in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself.