Partly allowed

P.Naga Rathana Rao v. P.Hema Bindu

Telangana HC12 Jun 2014FCA/43/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against an order granting maintenance to daughters allowed partially. The Court restricted the grant to the minor daughter up to her date of attaining majority, set aside the grant to the 1st respondent who had died, and restricted the 2nd respondent's claim to the specific tenure she was a minor.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance for 2nd respondent restricted to period from 20.4.2004 to 6.6.2012. Maintenance for 1st respondent set aside.

P.Naga Rathana Rao Vs P.Hema Bindu — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

F.C.A. No.43 of 2005

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is filed by the appellant/respondent against the order dated 10.03.2005 in M.C.No.11 of 2004 passed by the Family Court, Kurnool, partly allowing the petition filed by the respondents/petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C., r/w. Section 7(2)(a) of Family Courts Act, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each.

¶5

2. The aforesaid petition is filed by the respondents herein, who are the daughters of the appellant, alleging that the marriage between the appellant and mother of the respondents was performed on 17.2.1983 according to Hindu rites and customs at Gudur Village of Kurnool District and both of them lived together at Gudur from 1983 to 2002. During wedlock, both the respondents were born. It is alleged that due to the differences between the appellant and their mother, the appellant totally neglected them and their mother and failed to provide food to them. It is also alleged that the mother of the respondents is taking care of them by paying school fee etc. It is further alleged that the appellant was working as a Teacher and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, besides the properties worth Rs.10,00,000/- and getting an income of Rs.25,000/- therefrom and hence filed the present petition claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each. The appellant contested the said petition by filing counter affidavit.

¶6

3. Before the Court below, on behalf of the respondents herein, their mother was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.37. The appellant himself was examined as R.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. The Court below, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, by impugned order dated 10.03.2005 partly allowed the petition awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to each petitioner towards maintenance from 20.4.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶7

4. Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶8

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that during the pendency of the appeal, the 1^st respondent died and the 2^nd respondent attained majority by 6.6.2012. It is submitted that in view of the provision contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C., as the 2^nd respondent has attained majority, she is not entitled for maintenance. The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AMRENDRA KUMAR PAUL v. MAYA PAUL AND OTHERS^[1] , wherein it was held that the claim of maintenance under Section 125 (3) would cease to apply once the children attained majority.

¶9

6. In view of the settled legal position and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant, we set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to the grant of maintenance to the 1^st respondent and insofar as granting of maintenance to the 2^nd respondent is concerned, we restrict the same for the period from 20.4.2004 till she attained majority i.e.,

¶10

upto 6.6.2012, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month as ordered by the Court below.

¶11

7. Since no other ground is urged, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶12

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 12.06.2014. Msr

¶14

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

¶15

F.C.A. No.43 of 2005

¶16

12.06.2014 Msr

¶17

[1] AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2869

P.Naga Rathana Rao v. P.Hema Bindu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Naga Rathana Rao v. P.Hema Bindu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neil Anthony Hessing Vs Andria MEcheal

Mohd. Abdul Khader Qureshi , Afsar Vs Ms. Bee Pasha , Raheemunnisa Begum

Mr. S.G. Nagenderlal Vs Smt. S.N. Sangeera Bai

B. Shanker Vs Smt Tara Bai , Sujata

P.Samuel Vs Smt. P.Padma , K.Padma

Mr. B. Praveen Kumar Vs Smt. Swapna