APHC010176762008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 257/2008 Between: 1. KONERU SRINIVAS, S/O.BHASKARA RAO, HINDU UNEMPLOYEE R/O.10-256/A, PATIMEDA, GUDIWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. KONERU VANI 2 ORS, W/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU HOUSEWIFE R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, GUNTUR. 2. KONERU HARISHATHA CHOUDARY, S/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU BEING MINOR REP BY THE1ST RESPONDENT R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, GUNTUR. 3. KONERU PRATEEK CHOUDARY, S/O.SRINIVA MINOR REP BY THE1ST RESPONDENT R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, GUNTUR. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D.GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K JAYA KUMAR 2. 07167 3. G V R CHOUDARY 4. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 257/2008 KONERU SRINIVAS, S/O.BHASKARA RAO, HINDU UNEMPLOYEE 256/A, PATIMEDA, GUDIWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND KONERU VANI 2 ORS, W/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU HOUSEWIFE R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, KONERU HARISHATHA CHOUDARY, S/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU BEING MINOR REP BY THE1ST RESPONDENT R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, GUNTUR. KONERU PRATEEK CHOUDARY, S/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU BEING MINOR REP BY THE1ST RESPONDENT R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent(S): JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3545] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA KONERU SRINIVAS, S/O.BHASKARA RAO, HINDU UNEMPLOYEE 256/A, PATIMEDA, GUDIWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT KONERU VANI 2 ORS, W/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU HOUSEWIFE R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY BUILDINGS, NEAR J.K.C.COLLEGE, KONERU HARISHATHA CHOUDARY, S/O.SRINIVASU, HINDU BEING MINOR REP BY THE1ST RESPONDENT R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY SU, HINDU BEING MINOR REP BY THE1ST RESPONDENT R/O.D.NO.4, SAMBIREDDY ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.257 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Hari Haranadha Sarma) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2008 passed in M.C.No.18 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, the respondent therein filed the present appeal invoking Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the petitioners before the Family Court. The appellant is the husband and 1st respondents is his wife, 2nd and 3rd respondents are their children. 3. M.C.No.18 of 2008 was filed invoking Section 125(1) (a) and (b) of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to the wife and children of the appellant. Learned Judge, Family Court allowed the petition, granting maintenance of Rs.3000/- to the wife and Rs.1500/- each to the children, with incidental directions as to opening of accounts and depositing of maintenance amount in the bank accounts of the respondents on or before 5th of every month. 3 Case of the respondents [wife and Children]:- 4. The marriage between the appellant and 1st respondent was solemnised on 26.08.1997 followed by presentation of cash and customary gifts etc., and during the wed lock the appellant and the 1st respondent are blessed with respondents 2 and 3. The appellant started ill-treating the 1st respondent and developed illicit intimacy with one lady at Hyderabad. Respondents were neglected and necked out by the appellant and they are staying with the parents of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings in terms of 498-A IPC covered by Crime No.153 of 2006. Hence, they are entitled to live separately and for maintenance. Further, it is also the case of the respondents that the appellant is having sufficient means and he is a graduate from Kakatiya University, having several properties in his name and getting handsome income, therefore, able and liable to pay maintenance to the respondents. Case of the appellant [Husband]:- 5. All the allegations are false and the appellant purchased some property in the name of the 1st respondent (wife), she can get a job and she has been demanding conveyance of another land in an extent of Ac.6.00 etc. The 1st respondent (wife) owns gold and property, therefore, having sufficient means to maintain herself. He is ready to give his lands to children, he has been implicated in the criminal case, with false allegations. The 1st respondent has 4 wilfully deserted him and staying with her parents since January 2005 with her children, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance. However, he is ready to pay maintenance to children @Rs.1000/- each. 6. Learned Judge, Family Court after addressing the points, whether the 1st respondent-wife was subjected to cruelty and deserted by the appellant and whether the respondents are entitled for maintenance, after elaborate discussion of rival contentions, found that voluntarily desertion of the wife is not proved and that there are sufficient means to the appellant/husband to pay the maintenance @Rs.3000/- to wife and @Rs.1500/- for the children. Arguments in the appeal:- For the appellant [Husband]:- 7. [i] The 1st respondent/wife is living separately on her own. [ii] The appellant has been falsely implicated in the Criminal Case under Section 498-A IPC and lost job on that complaint. [iii] Having found that there are serious disputes between the parties, learned Family Court ought not to have awarded maintenance Rs.3000/- to the wife. [iv] Sufficient properties are owned by the wife and she has capacity to maintain herself. This has been ignored by the learned judge, Family Court. 5 [v] Learned Judge, Family Court failed to note that the property covered under Ex.P3-land cannot be considered as a consistent source of income for the appellant. Even those properties held by the appellant have been mortgaged for Rs.10,00,000/- for purchasing the property in the name of his wife. This aspect is ignored by the learned Judge of Family Court. For the respondents [Wife and Children] :- 8. [i] The impugned orders are well reasoned. [ii] Evidence is discussed elaborately and considered meticulously and orders under challenge are based on evidence. Rs.3000/- awarded to wife and Rs.1500/- awarded to children is very nominal. [iii] During the pendency of appeal, the respondents filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance and the same has been allowed enhancing the maintenance granted under the impugned orders. Therefore, no cause survives in this appeal. [iv] The appellant is always at default in complying the directions as to payment of maintenance awarded and there are no grounds to interfere. 9. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments and perused the impugned orders/proceedings. 10. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:- 1) Whether the1st respondent is justified in living separately and entitled for maintenance? If so, whether the maintenance awarded @Rs.3000/- per 6 month in favour of the 1st respondent/wife and @1500/- each in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents/children of the appellant, by learned Judge, Family Court under Orders dated 10.09.2008 in M.C.No.18 of 2008 is just, adequate and reasonable? Or require any interference? If so, to what extent and on what grounds? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1:- 11. [i] Relationship between the parties is not been disputed. [ii] Respondents are living separately. [iii] It is not the case of the appellant that he has initiated some proceedings for Restitution of conjugal society and successful against the 1st respondent/wife. [iv] The appellant is ready to pay maintenance to the children @1000/- p.m. by his own offer and admission. [v] There are wild allegations against the 1st respondent under Ex.R5–Notice dated 30.01.2005, stating that she has committed theft, with a warning that a criminal complaint would be lodged against her. However, the same was not done. Whereas the 1st respondent-wife has initiated legal proceedings in terms of Section 498-A IPC, and charge sheet was laid under Ex.R3-against the appellant. The allegation of theft was made in response to the demand made for maintenance under Ex.R4. 7 [vi] The allegations and counter allegations as to exchange of money, gifts, presentations etc., at the time of marriage, return of them are all not relevant to the present proceedings. [vii] Mere allegations that the 1st respondent/wife has completed Master of Library and Information Science [MLISC.], etc. and worked for some time at the Saradhi Engineering College, Nuziveedu are not sufficient to exonerate the appellant from liable to pay maintenance. [viii] Reasoning of the learned Judge, Family Court that without proof of specific income, mere possessing Post Graduate Degree does not disentitle the wife for maintenance, found rational. [ix] The conduct of the 1st respondent as to her cordial relationship with in-laws, her stay at Hyderabad with the appellant, and encouraging him for securing job at Hyderabad are all properly appreciated by the learned Judge, Family Court and the allegation against her that she is bringing pressure for setting up family at Guntur at her parental home has been rightly ignored as baseless considering her earlier conduct that she has admittedly encouraged appellant to secure job at Hyderabad. [x] The justification for separate living of the 1st respondent for the reason of ill-treatment, neglect and attribution of theft are properly weighed and considered by the learned Judge, Family Court. 8 [xi] The capacity of the appellant to provide maintenance at Rs.3000/- for the wife and Rs.1500/- for children found by learned Judge, Family Court with reference to the financial capacity of the appellant in possessing and procuring the property, education as well as employment sources are well reasoned and found fit for acceptance when the same are seen from the socio economic standard of the parties. 12. For all the reasons stated above, we find that the voluntary desertion of the matrimonial home by the 1st respondent alleged by the appellant is not shown with credible evidence and the 1st respondent is able to probabilise the justification for her separate living, necessity of the respondents for financial support and their inability to maintain on their own as well as the capacity of the appellant to provide maintenance, with proper evidence. Further the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court while appreciating relevant aspects as to justification of separate living of respondents, and their entitlement for maintenance and capacity and liability of the appellant to provide maintenance are all found as well reasoned and we find that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned judge, Family Court vide order dated 10.09.2008, on any count. Point No.1 framed is answered accordingly, against the appellant/husband and in favour of the respondents/wife and children. 9 Point No.2:- 13. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date:20.08.2025 Pnr 10 252 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.257 of 2008 Dt.20.08.2025 Pnr