Partly allowed

G.Sivashankar, v. Smt. Gajula Yasodamma

Telangana HC2 Apr 2014CRLRC/1518/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a criminal revision against a Family Court order granting maintenance to a mother from her sons. The High Court reduced the petitioner's monthly maintenance obligation from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 750, confirming that the petitioner must pay maintenance to his mother but adjusting the amount to his financial capacity. Pending miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance reduced to Rs. 750 per month from the date of the order.

G.Sivashankar, Vs Smt. Gajula Yasodamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1518 OF 2007 Dated 2-4-2014

¶2

Between: G.Sivashankar.

¶3

..Petitioner.

¶4

And:

¶5

Gajula Yasodamma and others.

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1518 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶8

This revision is against order dated 23-8-2007 in M.C.No.33 of 2006 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Tirupathi.

¶9

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

¶10

First respondent herein filed M.C.No.33 of 2006 before the Family Court against revision petitioner herein and respondents 2 and 3 herein who are her sons for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from each of the sons and trial court after examining one witness on behalf of mother besides marking four documents and three witnesses on behalf of sons besides marking three documents granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- from each of the sons per month. Aggrieved by the said order, first son i.e., revision petitioner herein preferred present revision.

¶11

3. Heard both sides.

¶12

4. Main contention of revision petiotner is that mother is residing with second son i.e., second respondent herein and the present petition is filed only

¶13

to extract money from the other sons. It is submitted that revision petitioner has no regular income and he has to perform marriages of three daughters and to maintain himself, therefore it is highly difficult for him to pay at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and the quantum may be reasonably reduced.

¶14

5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the order of the court below is legal, correct and proper?

¶15

6. POINT:

¶16

According to first respondent, she is suffering from old age and unable to maintain herself and she has no self earnings and therefore, she is staying with her second son. According to her, revision petitioner is doing real estate business and earning Rs.15,000/per month whereas her second son is a driver earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per month and according to her,

¶17

3^rd respondent is having a provision shop and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. To support her claim, she deposed as P.W.1 to the contents of petition. All the three respondents before lower court are examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and considering the evidence of both parties, trial court granted a total sum of Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to be paid by each son at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.

¶18

7. As seen from the evidence, contention of the sons is that there is a fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/in the name of mother besides house property and that she is getting a monthly income of Rs.2,500/- on money lending business. As there was no documentary evidence, this contention was not accepted by trial court. Now only request of counsel for revision petitioner is that he is prepared to pay maintenance as son but Rs.1,000/- is on higher side and that the same may be reduced reasonably.

¶19

8. This court while admitting the revision directed the revision petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs.750/- per month as maintenance and according to the representation of the advocate for revision petitioner, the same order is complied with and there are no arrears.

¶20

9. Considering the facts of the case, income of the revision petitioner and relationship between the parties, I feel that the amount fixed by this court at the time of admitting the case can be confirmed as maintenance to be paid by the revision petitioner to his mother.

¶21

10. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of confirming the grant of maintenance to the mother but the quantum is reduced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.750/- per month from the date of the order of this court i.e., 6-11-2007 the date on which, this interim order is passed.

¶22

11. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶23

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI

¶24

KUMAR

¶25

Dated 2-4-2014. Dvs.

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1518 OF 2007

¶28

Dated 2-4-2014

¶29

Dvs

G.Sivashankar, v. Smt. Gajula Yasodamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sivashankar, v. Smt. Gajula Yasodamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganduri Shankar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Darshnam Lalitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Jaleel, Vs Stae of A.P.

Vanam Sambaiah Vs State of Ap., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Nidamanuri Chinnammai Vs Yedla Venkamma

Chekka Kesavarao, Vs Sunkara Radha , Chekka Radha