Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1446 (TS)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2025-11-11

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.Ram Mohan Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel representing Mr. T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The marriage of the appellant with respondent No.1 was performed on 20.02.1995 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a son on 17.05.1998 i.e., respondent No.2. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. Appellant had filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.487 of 2005 against respondent No.1 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Vide order dated 07.11.2006, learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, allowed the said O.P. and dissolved the marriage of the appellant with respondent No.1. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.1 did not prefer any appeal and it has attained finality. 3. Respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 2000 against the appellant herein under Section 26 read with Section 7 and Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking maintenance. Vide order dated 15.04.2002, learned Family Court allowed the said application in-part and awarded an amount of Rs.1,200/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 4. Respondents filed an application under Section 25 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 vide F.C.O.P. No.46 of 2012 against the appellant seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court vide order dated 15.04.2002 in O.S.No.19 of 2000. Vide order dated 01.11.2013, learned Family Court allowed the said O.P. in-part and enhanced the maintenance of respondent No.1 to Rs.5,000/- per month and respondent No.2 to Rs.4,000/- per month, payable from the date of the said order. Learned Family Court also directed the appellant to deposit the said monthly maintenance on or before 10 th day of every month in the bank account of respondent No.1 and she has to furnish the details of the same within one week from the date of the said order. Challenging the said order, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal. 5. Vide order dated 25.03.2015, this Court granted interim suspension of the said order on condition of the appellant depositing Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondents. Challenging the said order, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal. 5. Vide order dated 25.03.2015, this Court granted interim suspension of the said order on condition of the appellant depositing Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondents. This Court also granted three months time to pay the arrears and he shall continue to deposit the current maintenance amount on or before 10 th day of each calendar month. 6. Respondents filed the said O.P. seeking enhancement of maintenance contending that appellant is working as Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force and he is earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month towards salary. However, appellant disproved the same. Appellant contended that after dissolution of the said marriage in compliance with the order dated 07.11.2006 in FCOP No.487 of 2005 passed by the learned Family Court, he got married and staying with his wife. His gross salary at that point of time was only Rs.37,255/- and net salary was Rs.15,772/-. 7. In proof of her claim, respondent No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and filed Ex.A1 - certified copy of judgment dated 15.04.2002 in O.S.No.19 of 2000 and Ex.A2 - bunch of school fee receipts of respondent No.2. To disprove the said claim, appellant examined himself as RW.1 and filed Ex.B1 - second marriage certificate of the appellant, Ex.B2 - birth certificate of the appellant’s daughter, Ex.B3 - divorce decree dated 07.11.2006 and Ex.B4 - salary certificate. 8. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 01.11.2013, learned Family Court allowed the said O.P. and awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards monthly maintenance. 9. Challenging the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal. There is no dispute that appellant was working as Sub-Inspector in CRPF in the year 2013. Now, he might have promoted to the higher post. It is apt to note that despite granting time, learned counsel for the appellant and respondents are not in a position to contact their clients and report the present status of the parties and their paying capacity. Therefore, we have perused the record. Now, he might have promoted to the higher post. It is apt to note that despite granting time, learned counsel for the appellant and respondents are not in a position to contact their clients and report the present status of the parties and their paying capacity. Therefore, we have perused the record. As per Ex.B.4 – salary certificate issued by the Accounts Officer of the Principal CTC-III, CRPF, Mudkhed, Nanded District, Maharashtra, appellant was working as Sub-Inspector in their office, his total income is Rs.37,255/- and after deductions of Rs.21,483/-, he used to receive net salary of Rs.15,772/- per month. 10. As per Ex.B.4, an amount of Rs.12,000/- was deducted towards P.F advance and Rs.2,000/- towards loan fund from the salary of the appellant. On consideration of the said evidence, more particularly, Ex.B.4 – salary certificate of the appellant for the month of December, 2012, learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 per month and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 11. As discussed supra, despite granting time, both learned counsel for the appellant and respondents are not in a position to contact their clients to get instructions with regard to the compliance of the interim order dated 25.03.2015 passed by this Court. 12. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, appellant was working as Sub-Inspector in CRPF at the relevant point of time i.e., in the year 2013. Ex.B4 – salary certificate of the appellant for the month of December, 2012, now we are in November, 2025, his salary might have enhanced due to pay revisions from time to time. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the appellant with respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is their son. It is also not in dispute that both the appellant and respondent No.1 obtained decree of divorce from the learned Family Court. Even then, she is entitled for maintenance and admittedly, respondent No.2 is their son and he is also entitled for maintenance. 13. It is the duty of the appellant to maintain his wife and son. While enhancing the maintenance, this Court has to consider their earning and paying capacity. Admittedly, appellant was earning an amount of Rs.37,255/- in the month of December, 2012. He used to contribute Rs.12,000/- towards P.F. Advance and Rs.2,000/- towards loan. 13. It is the duty of the appellant to maintain his wife and son. While enhancing the maintenance, this Court has to consider their earning and paying capacity. Admittedly, appellant was earning an amount of Rs.37,255/- in the month of December, 2012. He used to contribute Rs.12,000/- towards P.F. Advance and Rs.2,000/- towards loan. On consideration of the said aspects, learned Family Court has shown the net pay of the appellant as Rs.15,772/- in the impugned order. Therefore, learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2. It is a reasoned and well founded order. 14. As discussed supra, respondent No.2 was born on 17.05.1998 and now he is aged about 27 years. However, the appellant is not in a position to inform this Court that respondent No.2 is a student or working and drawing salary. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to inform this Court with regard to compliance of the interim order dated 25.03.2015 passed by this Court directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance of both respondents. 15. In the light of the same, the appellant is directed to pay the arrears to the respondents at the aforesaid rate as awarded by the learned Family Court within a period of three (3) months from today. Liberty is also granted to the appellant to take steps that respondent No.2 is not entitled for maintenance on the ground that he became major and he is working and drawing salary. 16. With the above said directions, this Family Court Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.