Item No.49
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
F.C.A.No.26 of 2021
and
I.A.No.2 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/husband has filed the present appeal aggrieved by
the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Additional
Family Court, Hyderabad, allowing O.P.No.1152 of 2013 filed by the
respondent No.1/wife and the respondents No.2 and 3/daughter and
son (who have become major by now) under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Family Court has allowed the petition granting Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondents No.2 and 3/daughter and son towards the maintenance from the date of filing the petition. Further, the appellant/husband has been directed to pay maintenance to the respondent No.2/daughter till the date of her marriage and to pay the maintenance to the respondent No.3/son till he attains the age of majority. The appellant/husband has also been directed to pay the marriage expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.2/daughter within three months from the date of F.C.A.No.26 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021 Page 1 of 4 passing of the order. The learned Family Court has also recorded the consent of the parties as given on 01.11.2018 whereby the right of the respondent No.1 to get family pension in the event of the demise of the appellant/husband, was preserved and the employers of the appellant/husband were directed to record the name of the respondent No.1 to receive the family pension in such an eventuality. Medical facilities were also directed to be extended to the respondents No.1 to 3 by issuing a C.G.H.S card, as per rules.
3. In view of the fact that the impugned order appears to be more or less a consent order, we have requested learned counsel for the appellant/husband to address this Court on the maintainability of the present appeal. Learned counsel states that the only anxiety of the appellant/husband is that his retiral benefits may be attached by the Court.
4. We have asked learned counsel for the appellant/husband to indicate as to the amounts, if any, paid by the appellant/husband to the respondents No.1 to 3 towards maintenance. He states that the appellant/husband has only been paying the maintenance as fixed by the concerned Court in M.C.No.284 of 2004, which is @ Rs.10,000/- per month collectively to the respondents No.1 to 3. The said submission can hardly be of any assistance. In any case, the learned Family Court has directed adjustment of the maintenance that has been directed to be paid by the appellant/husband to the respondents No.1 to 3 in M.C.No.284 of 2004, from out of the amounts fixed as maintenance to be paid to the respondents in the impugned order. F.C.A.No.26 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021 Page 2 of 4
5. Curious about the apprehension expressed by learned counsel that the appellant's retiral benefits may be attached, it transpires that due to non-compliance of the impugned order, the respondents No.1 to 3 have filed an execution petition for seeking enforcement of the said order and in the said proceedings, the Family Court has directed attachment of the retiral benefits of the appellant/husband.
6. That can hardly be a ground for this Court to entertain the present appeal. The appellant/husband having agreed to the terms and conditions recorded in the impugned order, he ought to have honoured his obligations, which he apparently did not, thus compelling the respondents No.1 to 3 to approach the Court for seeking enforcement of the impugned order.
7. Even otherwise, on perusing the impugned order, we find that valid reasons have been given by the learned Family Court for directing the appellant/husband to pay the maintenance to his wife and children. The appellant/husband had abandoned the respondents in the year 2004, whereafter they have been living separately. He failed to discharge the onus cast on him to establish through cogent evidence that the respondents had any other means to sustain themselves.
8. Noting that the appellant/husband was working as a Technical Assistant where his monthly salary was Rs.45,000/- and he had received pensionary benefits to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- on superannuation in August, 2013 and further he owned a plot in Nadurgul Village and is getting a monthly pension of Rs.25,250/-, the Family Court has deemed it appropriate to direct him to pay a sum of F.C.A.No.26 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021 Page 3 of 4 Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each to his two children while permitting deduction of the amounts directed to be paid by him to the respondents in M.C.No.284 of 2004. The impugned judgment is a reasoned one and does not warrant any interference.
9. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 23.02.2021 vs F.C.A.No.26 of 2021 and I.A.No.2 of 2021 Page 4 of 4