Partly allowed

T. Rama Nagabushana Rao v. Smt. T.Lakshmi and 2 Others

Telangana HC22 Feb 2018FCA/216/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Family Court Appeal challenging maintenance awards, the Supreme Court held that despite a lack of concrete evidence regarding the appellant's current employment, his potential to earn as a qualified lecturer precluded him from avoiding maintenance responsibility, leading to a downward modification of the awarded amounts.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance reduced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month for each respondent; liberty given to file fresh application for further maintenance if appellant's employment is later proven.

T. Rama Nagabushana Rao Vs Smt. T.Lakshmi and 2… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

Date: 22.02.2018

¶3

Between :

¶4

T. Rama Nagabushana Rao … Appellant And Smt. T. Lakshmi and others … Respondents COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Sri P.N Murthy COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS : Sri K. Ravi

¶5

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CVNR,J & GSP,J

FCA.No.216 of 2013

JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶10

This Family Court Appeal is filed by the respondent in FCOP.No.759 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.12.2012 passed therein, whereby it has awarded Rs.8,000/- each in favour of the respondents herein towards monthly maintenance.

¶11

Heard Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Ravi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

Respondent No.1 is the wife of the appellant. Their marital life ran into rough weather, as a result of which they are living separately. Respondent No.2 is the daughter and respondent No.3 is the son of the appellant and respondent No.1. Admittedly, they are living with respondent No.1 and the appellant has not been looking after their necessities. In this back-ground of facts, the respondents have filed the afore-mentioned FCOP each claiming maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The Family Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by the aforesaid order and decree, awarded Rs.8,000/- each towards monthly maintenance to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶13

Sri P.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though his client was working as a Chemistry Lecturer in

CVNR,J & GSP,J

FCA.No.216 of 2013

Corporate Colleges when his family life was running smoothly, because of unreasonable conduct of respondent No.1 in causing disturbance to the appellant by going to his work place, he lost employment and, therefore, during the pendency of the FCOP as well as now, the appellant remained unemployed.

¶18

Whereas Sri K. Ravi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant is still working as a Chemistry Lecturer and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

¶19

A perusal of the material on record shows that except alleging that the appellant is working as a Chemistry Lecturer and earning

¶20

Rs.1,00,000/- per month, no evidence in proof thereof has been filed.

¶21

The Family Court in the order under appeal took note of the fact that the appellant has worked as a Lecturer in Chemistry in different Corporate Colleges, such as Triveni College, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad; Narayana Junior College, Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Rishi College and Gowtham College. However, no finding was recorded by it that during the pendency of the FCOP, the appellant was working and drawing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards salary.

¶22

The proposition that the husband has the responsibility to maintain his wife and children is well settled. While there may not

¶23

¶24

CVNR,J & GSP,J FCA.No.216 of 2013

¶25

be evidence to show that the appellant is presently employed, it is, however, undisputed that he has the potential to work and earn, being a Post-Graduate in Chemistry, which subject has huge demand in the Corporate Colleges. Therefore, the appellant cannot abdicate his responsibility towards the respondents.

¶26

All the respondents are present and this Court came to know through interaction with respondent Nos.2 and 3 that they are pursuing their Engineering courses. While on the one hand, there is no specific evidence that the appellant is presently working and drawing a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month, he cannot, however, be allowed to avoid the responsibility of maintaining the respondents. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to modify the order of the Family Court to balance the interest of both the parties. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month granted by the Family Court towards monthly maintenance to each of the respondents is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month each. However, if, in future, the respondents are able to collect evidence of the appellant being employed and earning, they are at liberty to file a fresh application for further maintenance by approaching the competent Court.

¶27

Subject to the liberty given as above to the respondents, the order under appeal of the Family Court is modified by reducing the

¶28

¶29

CVNR,J & GSP,J FCA.No.216 of 2013

¶30

monthly maintenance from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each in favour of the respondents.

¶31

The Family Court Appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶32

Consequently, FCA.MP.No.92 of 2014 shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶34

____________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
22.02.2018.
Msr

CVNR,J & GSP,J

FCA.No.216 of 2013

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶39

F.C.A.No.216 of 2013

¶40

22.02.2018 Msr

T. Rama Nagabushana Rao v. Smt. T.Lakshmi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Rama Nagabushana Rao v. Smt. T.Lakshmi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Saleem Vs State of Tg,Ch.Scy,G.a.D.,Hyd,and 2

Sk. Fathima, Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Kasireddy Ramakrishna Reddy, and 2 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Pinnamaraju Sirisha Bhadrakali,Sirisha Vs Pinnamaraju Atchuta Rao

J.Bharat Singh Vs J.Munna Bai

Polampalli Danaveera, Vs Boppi Karuna Sri , Polampalli Karuna Sri