K.Yadaiah vs K.Jyothi And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 508 Tel

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

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.

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

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