Dismissed

Maddala Dharmaji Rao v. Maddala Ranga Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Dec 2019CRP/2821/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the Family Court's order rejecting an application to summon bank statements of the petitioner's elder brother in a pending maintenance case. The Court held that the trial court correctly deferred the summoning until after the petitioner's main evidence concludes.

What did the court decide?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and closed any pending miscellaneous applications.

Maddala Dharmaji Rao Vs Maddala Ranga Rao — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2821 of 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Challenge in this CRP filed by the respondent in the FCOP No.174 of 2018 is to the order dated 10.08.2019 in I.A.No.967 of 2019 in FCOP No.174 of 2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram, dismissing the petition filed by the respondent under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to summon the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Horlicks Factory Branch, Dowleswaram, Rajamahendravaram Rural, to cause production of the account statement of Sri Maddala Pulla Rao, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, in respect of the S.B. Account bearing Account Nos.108410011002880 and 108430100054992 for the periods 31.03.2016 to 01.04.2017, 31.03.2017 to 01.04.2018 and 31.03.2018 to 01.04.2019.

¶4

Factual matrix of this case is thus:

¶5

(a) The respondents in the CRP are the parents of the petitioner herein and they have two sons. The petitioner herein is the younger son. They filed FCOP.No.174 of 2018 against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- each per month. The petitioner herein is contesting the O.P. by filing counter.

¶6

(b) While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.967 of 2019 in FCOP.No.174 of 2018 to summon the bank account particulars of Sri Maddala Pulla Rao, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, to

¶7

¶8

establish his contention that his brother is having sufficient means to maintain his parents and he is not legally required to maintain them. The respondents filed counter and opposed the petition.

¶9

(c) The trial court dismissed the petition on the observation that the parents of the petitioner are aged persons and they filed interim maintenance petition and the same is pending and further, the evidence in the main O.P. has not yet commenced and after completion of the evidence, if the petitioner herein finds it necessary to prove the means of his parents, in such a case, after his evidence, he can file the application to summon the bank account particulars of his father. The trial court thus held that it did not find any necessity at this juncture to consider the petition and accordingly dismissed the same.

¶10

Hence, the CRP.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.R.S.Srinivas and learned counsel for respondents, Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya.

¶12

As can be seen from the impugned order, the trial court all together did not decline to consider the application of the petitioner to summon the bank account particulars of Sri Maddala Pulla Rao, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, but, however, it observed that during the course of evidence of the petitioner, such an application can be filed. Needless to emphasize, the trial court, it is expected, would consider the said application in the light of the evidence available on record.

¶13

¶14

In that view, I find no merits in the CRP. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶15

costs.

¶16

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 27.12.2019 SS

Maddala Dharmaji Rao v. Maddala Ranga Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddala Dharmaji Rao v. Maddala Ranga Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divi Parvathi Vs the State of Ap

Dr M Jaya Chandra Naidu and Anothers Vs Vizianagaram Municipallity, Rep by It Commissioner

B. Sreenivasulu Vs The Commissioner

Sriramoju and Anothers Vs Prl.Secretary ( Revenue) and 3 Others

Thoguru Pedda Veeraiah at Veeraiah, and Another, Vs Prl.Secy., Revenue Dept., Hyd., and 5 Others

C R Anand Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh