Dismissed

Machavarapu Allen David v. Machavarapu Mery Tabitha

Telangana HC5 Feb 2019FCA/42/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a follow-up to a divorce decree, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal against the maintenance order. The Court held the quantum reasonable and directed the husband to pay arrears of maintenance for the wife and child.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant-husband is directed to deposit arrears of Rs. 1,000/- per month each for the wife and child from April 2009 to January 2019.

Machavarapu Allen David Vs Machavarapu Mery Tabitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

¶3

AND

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

F.C.A.No.42 of 2009

¶6

Date: 05.02.2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Machavarapu Allen David

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

and

¶11

Machavarapu Mery Tabitha

¶12

…Respondent Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Kowturi Pavan Kumar represented by Mr. M.V.Hanumantha Rao Counsel for the respondent : Mr. P.V. Vidyasagar The Court made the following:

¶13

JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-husband is not so much aggrieved by the divorce granted to him by the learned Family Court, Nalgonda in O.P.No.39 of 2008, by order dated 23.07.2008, as he is aggrieved by the direction of the learned Family Court that he shall pay Rs.3,000/per month to the respondent-wife, and Rs.2,000/- per month to the female child born during the wedlock. Therefore, he has filed the present appeal before this Court.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentwife submits that the direction to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the child is not an unreasonable amount, which cannot be afforded by the appellanthusband. He further pleads that by order dated 30.03.2009, this Court had already limited the directions of the learned Family Court, and had directed the appellant-husband to pay merely Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, and Rs.1,000/- per month to the child. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the appellant-husband, in fact, is liable to pay the arrears of the maintenance to the respondent-wife, and to the child. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

¶16

Needlesstosay, while a divorce is granted, the wife is entitled either for permanent alimony, or for the maintenance, for the rest of her life. The learned Family Court had granted a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.2,000/per month to the child. Obviously, the said amount is not an exorbitant amount to be granted to the respondent-wife and to the

¶17

child. Considering the fact that the child continues to stay with the respondent-wife, the mother, and considering the fact that it would be the responsibility of the mother to educate the child and eventually to settle the child, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month for the mother and Rs.2,000/- per month for the child is rather reasonable. Therefore, the appellant-husband is not justified in challenging this part of the impugned order.

¶18

Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal; it is, hereby, dismissed.

¶19

The appellant-husband is directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife, and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the female child, from April, 2009 till January, 2019, within a period of two months from today.

¶20

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶21

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________________________ (RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J)

¶23

__________________________ (T. AMARNATH GOUD, J)

¶24

05^th February, 2019 JSU

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶28

F.C.A.No.42 of 2009

¶29

Date: 05.02.2019

¶30

JSU

Machavarapu Allen David v. Machavarapu Mery Tabitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machavarapu Allen David v. Machavarapu Mery Tabitha

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

Banoth Kalpana Vs Azmeera Srinivas

Mohd. Shafeeq Ahmed Vs Asma Praveen and Another

M/S Aravind Constrctions (P) Limited Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Malayal Sravan Kumar Vs Malyal Archana

Kongari Ravinder Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Mohammed Hassanuddin Vs Abdul Sattar