Partly allowed

Nidumukkala Satish Chandra v. Nidamukkala Bhagya Sree

Telangana HC28 Oct 2013FCA/405/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an ex parte order awarding Rs.1,00,000 towards educational expenses. The Supreme Court set aside the order, held that the Ex parte order was passed without an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31.08.2009 was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration and disposal after hearing both parties.

Nidumukkala Satish Chandra Vs Nidamukkala Bhagya… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

¶4

F.C.A. No.83 of 2012 and F.C.A. No.405 of 2013

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

These two appeals are filed against the order, dated 31.08.2009, passed by the learned Family Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No.667 of 2009. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.

¶7

The petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. She filed the O.P. under Section 20 (5) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for short ‘the Act’) with a prayer to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards educational expenses and Rs.50,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. She pleaded that though the respondent is under obligation to maintain her and to provide education, he neglected her and her mother. It was mentioned that O.P.No.761 of 2007 was filed in the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and that the same is pending.

¶8

The respondent was set ex parte and the trial Court passed an order, dated 31.08.2009, directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards educational expenditure. The rest of the claim was dismissed. While the petitioner filed F.C.A.No.83 of 2012, not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Family Court, the respondent filed F.C.A.(SR) No.53388 of 2012 challenging the very order stating that he was not given an opportunity and that the petitioner resorted to gross misuse of process of Court.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶10

The relationship between the respondent on the one hand and his wife and daughter, the petitioner herein, on the other was a bit strained. The petitioner and her mother filed O.P.No.761 of 2007 in the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance for the petitioner and Rs.30,000/- for her mother. The respondent contested the matter by filing a counter. The trial Court recorded the evidence of

¶11

P.Ws.1 and 2 and took on record Exs.A1 to A14. In addition to that, the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 was also recorded and Exs.B1 to B10 were taken on record. Through its order, dated 28.03.2011, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the petitioner and her mother, as maintenance. The respondent did not file any appeal and the order in O.P.No.761 of 2007 became final.

¶12

During the pendency of O.P.No.761 of 2007, the petitioner filed O.P.No.667 of 2009. It is, no doubt, true that in the petition, she made a reference to O.P.No.761 of 2007. Since she figured as petitioner in both the O.Ps., she was under obligation to ensure that both are heard by the same Court. Further, the factum of an ex parte order having been passed on 31.08.2009 was not brought to the notice of the Additional Family Court, when it decided O.P.No.761 of 2007. The respondent came to know about the order in O.P.No.667 of 2009 only when he received the notice in F.C.A.No.83 of 2012 and soon thereafter, he filed an appeal.

¶13

We are of the view that the respondent deserves to be given an opportunity to put forward his case before the trial Court and the matter must be decided on merits. The question of maintainability of a second O.P. under the same provision against the same person would also arise for consideration.

¶14

Hence, the appeals are allowed and the order, dated 31.08.2009, passed in O.P.No.667 of 2009, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal, after giving an opportunity to both the parties. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.

¶16

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶17

______________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J

¶18

Dt:28.10.2013

¶19

kdl

Nidumukkala Satish Chandra v. Nidamukkala Bhagya Sree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidumukkala Satish Chandra v. Nidamukkala Bhagya Sree

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

Machineni Venakteswara Rao , Subah Rao , Venkat Rao Vs Machineni Swapna

Mechineni Swapna Vs Mechineni Venkateshwar Rao ,Suhas Rao , Venkat Rao

S.Saraswathi Vs S.Srinivas Reddy

Talakoti Bhaskara Rao(died) Vs K.Prakasam(died)

Inguva Venkat Bharat Kumar, Vs Smt. I. Ramya

Sri Edupuganti Appa Rao Vs The Official Liquidator