Andhra Pradesh High Court says Rs 3,000 ‘undeniably meagre’ for daughter, rejects man’s plea against maintenance award

‘Maegre amount in present-day society’

• The trial court awarded only Rs 3,000 per month to the child, while the claim of the woman was dismissed. 
• The amount granted was modest and supported by evidence, considering that the child required maintenance and the petitioner, being her father, is legally bound to maintain her.
• In the present times, even this amount is undeniably meagre to maintain a child in present-day society.
• The petitioner, being the father of the child, who is of tender age, is legally bound to maintain his daughter. He cannot abdicate his responsibility in such a callous and negligent manner.

• The court noted that the petitioner failed to disprove the relationship and proceeded on the basis that he is the father of the child and husband of the woman.

‘Mason work, trial court’s illegal maintenance order’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vinod Kumar Tarlada submitted that the January 2020 order passed by the court granting maintenance of Rs 3,000 to the child is illegal and unsustainable. 
• It is contended that the child’s mother is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that both of them lived together only as man and wife without any valid marriage. 
• It is further submitted that due to disputes between them, the matter was resolved in the presence of village elders, wherein the woman agreed to live separately after receiving clothes and a sum of Rs 60,000 towards permanent alimony.
• It was further claimed that the woman undertook to maintain the child.
• It is further contended that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing mason work at Chennai and is already maintaining his present wife, two children and aged mother.
• The counsel claimed that his client is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance amount as ordered by the court.

‘Mason worker with Rs 15 lakh property’

• On the contrary, the woman’s counsel, advocate Taddi Nageswara Rao and the assistant public prosecutor argued that the trial court correctly appreciated the factual circumstances of the case.
• They mentioned that the petitioner is a mason worker by profession and gets more than Rs 300 per day.
• It is submitted that there are no infirmities, no material irregularities, and no valid grounds to quash the order passed by the trial court.

• It is contended that the petitioner possesses land worth about Rs 15 lakh, and he is getting an income of Rs 60,000 through the landed property and also has a one slab-house.
• It is also claimed that the petitioner is also doing an interest business, and he is getting an income of Rs 15,000 per month towards interest business.