Partly allowed

P.Samuel v. Smt. P.Padma , K.Padma

Telangana HC12 Jun 2014FCA/150/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against a Family Court order awarding maintenance, this court held that the minor son is entitled to maintenance only until majority, while the wife remains entitled. The maintenance quantum for the wife was upheld without reduction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; modified to deny majority son's post-majority maintenance claim and uphold wife's maintenance.

P.Samuel Vs Smt. P.Padma , K.Padma — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

F.C.A. No.150 OF 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984, is directed against the order, dated 30-07-2005, in O.P. No.75 of 2004, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool.

¶5

2. The aforesaid O.P., under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) read with

¶6

Section 7 (2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, was filed by the respondents herein against the appellant seeking maintenance claiming that they are his wife and son, respectively. The Family Court, by the aforesaid order, allowed the application awarding maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month to each respondent.

¶7

3. It is alleged by the respondents that the appellant is employed as driver in Irrigation Department and was earning around Rs.8,000/- per month. It is their case that the appellant,

¶8

having developed illegal intimacy with one Tirupathamma, started neglecting them. The appellant filed his counter

¶9

denying his relationship with respondent No.1, as husband, and patronage of respondent No.2.

¶10

4. Before the Family Court, on behalf of the respondents, PWs.1 and 2 were examined apart from CW.1, employer of the appellant, and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked apart from Ex.X-1.

¶11

On behalf of the appellant, he was examined as RW.1, but no documentary evidence was adduced.

¶12

5. The Family Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that respondent No.1 is the wife of the appellant as he himself has got her name entered as his wife in his service register and the same is supported by the evidence of CW.1, who is employer of the appellant, and also Ex.X-1, true copy of the aforesaid entry in the service register of the appellant. Further, having regard to the evidence on record and income of the appellant, the Family Court allowed the application by awarding maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month to each respondent. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred.

¶13

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondents filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 is not entitled to maintenance after attaining majority. It is further

¶14

submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that respondent No.1 is wife of the appellant and respondent No.2 was born through him.

¶15

7. As shown in the cause title, respondent No.2 was 16 years old in 2004 i.e., at the time of filing the application for maintenance before the Family Court. He became major after

¶16

filing the appeal, as such, he is not entitled to maintenance after attaining majority, as per the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Further, in Amarender Kumar

¶17

Paul v. Maya Paul & others^[1] ,

¶18

th e Hon’ble Apex Court held that once children attain majority,

¶19

the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. would cease to apply to their cases. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 is not entitled to maintenance from the date on which he attained majority.

¶20

8. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, there is abundant oral and documentary evidence to show that she is the wife of the appellant. Though it is the case of the appellant that she is his concubine and not wife, the evidence of CW.1, who is employer of the appellant, establishes that the appellant himself has got the name of respondent No.1 entered, as his wife in his service register.

¶21

9. In view of the evidence of PW.1 and CW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, particularly, Ex.X-1, it is clear that respondent No.1 is the wife of the appellant, and therefore, she is entitled to maintenance from the appellant.

¶22

10. Even with regard to quantum of maintenance, it is to be noticed that the appellant was drawing a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month in 2004, and in view of his length of service, increments and pay revisions etc., now, he must be drawing more than Rs.15,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, we do not see any ground to reduce the maintenance granted to respondent No.1.

¶23

11. As found herein-above, it is made clear that respondent No.1, who is the wife of the appellant, is entitled to maintenance as ordered by the Family Court, and respondent No.2 is entitled to maintenance only till the date on which he attained majority.

¶24

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order impugned to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

13. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal stand disposed of.

¶26

__________________________ R. SUBHASH

¶27

REDDY, J

¶28

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶29

June 12, 2014. PV