L. Prakash v. Smt. Abbagoni Vedavathi

These two civil revision petitions arise out of common order, dated 23.08.2011, in I.A.Nos.431 and 656 of 2011 in O.P.No.1662 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He has filed O.P.No.1662 of 2010 for divorce. While he has filed I.A.No.656 of 2011 seeking interim maintenance from the respondent, the latter filed I.A.No.431 of 2011 for the same relief against the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The lower Court, having considered the respective pleadings of the parties, dismissed I.A.No.656 of 2011 and allowed I.A.No.431 of 2011 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent apart from awarding Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses in her favour. Dr. K. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the reasons given by the lower Court cannot be sustained.

He pointed out that the presumption drawn by the lower Court that as the petitioner is living in an apartment located in Banjara Hills road at Masab Tank, he was earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month, is wholly baseless. After carefully considering the pleadings of the parties and the reasons given by the lower Court, I am of the opinion that grant of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is the case of the petitioner that he is unemployed and that he does not possess any property while the respondent is stated to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month as Teacher. The lower Court has found that while the respondent was working as Teacher in a private school prior to her marriage, it is her specific case that she has resigned after marriage and that she has not been reemployed later. The Court below has therefore rejected the plea of the petitioner that the respondent is continuing to work even after marriage, in the absence of any evidence produced by him.

As regards the means to pay by the petitioner, the lower Court has placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.431 of 2011, wherein he has admitted that the apartments are owned by his mother and not by himself. Even though I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower Court ought not to have drawn presumption that the petitioner might be earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month merely on the basis of the area in which he is living, even if this finding is discarded, still the petitioner cannot escape from the liability of maintaining his wife. The sum of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded in favour of the respondent is too meagre, which is hardly sufficient for maintenance of a person in these days. As the petitioner’s family is found to own substantial properties, even if they are not in the name of the petitioner himself, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to pay the lowly sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards the maintenance of his wife, pending the divorce petition.