to be examined now as to whether maintenance of Rs.500/- awarded to the daughter would be sufficient. She was aged one year when the application for maintenance was filed before the trial Court in the year 2004. She must be of 11 years of age as of now and must be prosecuting her education. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the salary of the first respondent is only Rs. 2,500/- and that he cannot pay maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- each to the wife and daughter cannot be countenanced. The 1st respondent is an able bodied man capable of earning. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent is drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- as a private employee viz., Civil Draftsman in Sri Krishna Associates, Rajahmundry. On the other hand, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that he is drawing Rs.2,500/- per month; as per the statement of RW-1 and is supporting witness RW-2, who is the employer of RW-1, he was only getting a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. However, no accounts concerning RW-2 are produced to show as to what is the actual salary being paid to the first respondent. It is borne out by record that the first respondent is having a cell phone and also a land line telephone at his residence and is also maintaining Bajaj Scooter and paying a vehicle loan of Rs.1,800/- per month. Be that as it may, by now his salary might have increased cannot be disputed.
