Kota Pratap Babu Vs. Vankayalapati Ramalakshmi and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Family;Civil |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Apr-24-2009 |
| Civil Appeal No. 2809 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23057/07) |
| Altamas Kabir and; B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. |
| Kota Pratap Babu |
| Vankayalapati Ramalakshmi and anr. |
| G. Ramakrishna Prasad,; B. Suyodhan,; Amar Pal and; |
| A.V. Rao, ; Prabhakar Parnam and ; Venkateswara Rao Anumolu |
| From the Judgment and Order dated 06/10/2007 in CMP No. 1606/2006 and CMA No. 2200/2004 of The High Court of A.P at Hyderabad |
.....or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. leave granted.2. the appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.3. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.4. by the impugned order, the division bench of the high court has passed an interim order directing the appellant - husband to pay an amount of rs. 5,000/- to the respondent - wife from the date of the petition, namely, 8th september, 2006, till october, 2007, and, thereafter, to continue to pay the same every month.5. on behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that at the relevant time when the order was passed, the appellant had produced a certificate from the institution in which he was employed, to indicate that he was receiving a total salary of rs. 5,440/- and in- spite of the same, the impugned order was passed directing him to pay rs. 5,000/- by way of maintenance to the respondent. during the hearing of the appeal, the appellant has produced a further certificate showing the present salary being drawn by him from vigyan degree college, in which he was working as a lecturer in the english department. from the certificate which has been issued on 9th april, 2009, it appears that the appellant is being paid a salary of rs. 9910/- per month.6. it.....
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has passed an interim order directing the appellant - husband to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent - wife from the date of the petition, namely, 8th September, 2006, till October, 2007, and, thereafter, to continue to pay the same every month.
5. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that at the relevant time when the order was passed, the appellant had produced a Certificate from the Institution in which he was employed, to indicate that he was receiving a total salary of Rs. 5,440/- and in- spite of the same, the impugned order was passed directing him to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of maintenance to the respondent. During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant has produced a further Certificate showing the present salary being drawn by him from Vigyan Degree College, in which he was working as a Lecturer in the English department. From the Certificate which has been issued on 9th April, 2009, it appears that the appellant is being paid a salary of Rs. 9910/- per month.
6. It has also been pointed out by the respondent that the appellant owns other properties and the income therefrom was not taken into consideration. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant it is submitted that the respondent also runs a school and the income therefrom has also not been taken into consideration while granting maintenance to the appellant.
7. Having regard to the above, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the High Court to consider the matter afresh in the light of the fresh materials which have been produced and which may be produced on behalf of the respondent.
8. In the meantime, as an interim measure, the appellant will pay to the respondent-wife maintenance at the reduced rate of Rs. 2500/- per month from the month of May, 2009.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.