Dismissed

K.Yadaiah v. K.Jyothi and 2 Others

Telangana HC23 Feb 2021FCA/26/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant/husband against a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife and two adult children. The appellant argued that the order prejudiced his retirement benefits, but the court held he had abandoned the family and failed to disprove their means of support, finding no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act was dismissed as meritless.

K.Yadaiah Vs K.Jyothi and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

F.C.A. NO: 26 OF 2021

AND

t.A. NO. 2 0F 2021

F.C.A. NO. 26 0F2021

Appeal Under Section^'19 of Family Court Act against the Judgment daled 14-12-2018 in O.P. No. 1152 ot 2013 on the file of the Gourt of the Judge, Additional Family Court at Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

K.Yadaiah, S/o late Sri Ramaiah aged 62 years,Occ: Retd employee, R/o C/o DRDL Maintainance Section, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

K.Jyothi W/o Yadaiah, aged 37 years, Occ: Houseife

¶15

K.Usharani, D/o K.Yadiah, aged^'13.years, Occ: Student

¶16

K.Saikiran, S/o K.yadaiah, aged 16 years, Occ: Student

¶17

Respondents No.2 and 3 are minors represented by Natural guardian/mother

¶18

All Respondents R/o 18-1-337/195 Arundhati Nagar,Hyderabad

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of,$he petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of ( 30 ) days in filing the above of FCA. SR No. 5709/1 9 .

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. C. FRANCIS

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶24

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

Item No.49

¶26

THE HON 'BLE'ltlE C'lllhlf^,l t S'l^lC'E Ill{'<sup>KOI{LI AN I)

¶27

.I'HB HON'BT,Ii SRI.ITISTICI.] I]. 'I.IAYSEN RE,DDY

¶28

[.C...\o.2(r ol'2021 ln(l LA.\o.2 of 2021

¶29

COMMON JUDGMENT:^{(l)e r thcI I ou'blcthrChie l Justice Hima Kohli)}

¶30

'Ihe appellant/husband has filed the present appeal aggrieved by tlre order dated 14J22018^passed by^{the lealned Judge, Additional} Iranrily Court, Hyderabad, allorving O.l'.No.1152^{o1'2013 tiled by the} respondent No.l/wife and the respondents^{No.2 and 3/daughterand} I son (who have become major by now)^{under Sections18 and 20 of the} FIindu Adoptions and Mainlenance Act,^1956.

¶31

By the impugned order, the learned iramily Coum^{has allowed} the petition granting Rs.7,000/- pct' t.ttonth^{to the responder-rt No.l/wif'e} and Rs.5,000/- per month to cacl.t o1' the^{respondentsNo'2and} 3/daughter and son towards the rnaintenance^{tl'ornthe date of tiling} the petition. Further, the appellanti husbancl^{has been directedto pay} maintenance to the respondent No.2/dar,rghter^{rill the date of her} marriage and to pay the maintenance^{to the respondentNo.3/sontill} he attains the age of majority.^-fhe appellant/husband^{has also been} directed to pay the maffragc cxpcnscs ol Rs.5.00,000/- to the respondent No.2/daughter within thrce^{ntonths liom thc date ol}

¶32

l'uge I oJ 4

¶33

l-.C.A.No.26 oJ 2021 trtd 1..'1.-'o.2 o/^2t)2 I

¶34

passing of the order.^{The learned Family Court has also recordedthe} consent of the parties^{as given on 0 I . I I .201 8 whereby the right of the} respondent No.l^{to get familypension in the event of the demiseof} the appetlant/husband,^{was preserved and the ernployersof the} appellant,4rusband^{wet'edirectedto record the nameof the respondent} No. I to receive the^{familypension in suchan eventuality'Medical} facilities were also^{directedto be extendedto the respondents No' l} to 3 by issuing a C.G.H'S^{card, as per rules.}

¶35

In view of the fact that^{the impugnedorder appearsto be more} or less a consent^{order, we haverequestedlearned counselfor the} appellant/husband^{to addressthis court on the maintainabilityof the} present appeal. Learned^{counsel statesthat the onlyanxietyof the} appellanVhusbar.rd^{is that his retiralbenefitsmay be attachedby the} Cour1.

¶36

We have asked^{learned counselfor the appellant/husband to} indicate as to the an'tounts,^{if anyj paid by the appellant/husbandto the} respondents No.1 to^{3 towards tnaintenance' He statesthatthe} appellant/husband^{has onlybeen paying the maintenanceas fixed by} the concerned Court^{in M.C.No.284of 2004,whichis} @^Rs'10,0001 per month collectively to^{the respondentsNo' 1 to 3} '^{The said} subrnission can hardty^{be of any assistance'In any case, the learned} Family Court has directed^{adjustmentof the maintenance that has} been directed to be^{paid by the appellant/husbandto the respondents} No.1 to 3 in M.C.No.284^{of 2004, from out of the amounts fixedas} maintenance to be^{paidto the respondentsin the impugned order'}

¶37

Page 2 of 4

¶38

F.C.A.No.26 of^{2021 unt I.A.'o.2 ttf 2021}

¶39

Curious about^{the apprehisionexpresseclby learned counsel} that the appellant's^{retiralbenellts maybe attached,it transpires that} due to non=compliance^{of the impugned order, the respondents No' l} to 3 have filed^{an executionpetiiion for seeking enforcement of the} said order and^{in the said proceedings,the F'amily court hasdirected} attachment of the^{retiral benefitsof the appellant/husband'}

¶40

That can hardly^{be a groundfor this Court to entertain the} present appeal. The^{appellant/husbandhaving agreedto the termsand} conditions recorded^{in the impugned order, he oughtto have honoured} his obligations,^{which he apparently did not, thus compelling the} respondents No,^{1 to 3 to approachthe Courtfor seeking enforcement} of the impugned^order.

¶41

Even otherwise,^{on perusing the impugned order,we find that} valid reasons have^{been given by the tealr.red F'amily Courttbr} directing the appellant/husband^{to pay the maintenance to his wife and} children. The appellant/husband^{hadabar.rdonedthe respondents in} the year 2004,^{whereafter they have been living separately'He t-ailed} to discharge the onus^{cast on him to establish throughcogent evidence} that the respondents^{had any other means to sustainthemselves'}

¶42

Noting that the appellant/husband^{rvasworking as a Technical} Assistant where his^{monthly salary was Rs.45,000/-and he had} received pensionary^benefits to^{the tune of Rs 9,00,000/- on} superannuation in^{August,20 13 and lurther he owned a plot in} Nadurgul Village and^{is getting a monthly pension of Rs.25,250/-,the} Family Court has deemed^{it appropriateto direct him to pay a sum of}

¶43

Page 3 of 4

¶44

F,C.A.No.26 of 2021^and I.A.No.2 of²⁰²¹

¶45

Rs.7,000/- per rrontlr to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- per rronth each to his trvo children vi,hile permitting deduction of the amounts directed to be paid by him to the lespondents in M.C.No.284 of 2004. The inrpugned judement is a reasoned one and does not $,an'anl anv inter tercn c e

¶46

As a result, tlle preseni appeal is dismissed as meritless along

¶47

with the per.rding applications, ilany.

¶48

Sd/.K.SREENIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \LSECTION OFFICER

¶49

Toi- the.ludge, Additional Family Court, lydera-bad. (with records )

¶50

2, one cc t6 Snt l. c.^{FRANcls Advocate} [oPUc]

¶51

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

HCJ & BVRJ

DATED:2310212021

COMMON JUDGMENT

FCA.No.26 of 2021 AND

¶59

+
1 H e s TA
(
oo 0I t'iln 2021 z
*
..()
F

¶60

I.A. NO. 2 0F 2021

¶61

DISMISSING THE FCA

¶62

1.<br>

K.Yadaiah v. K.Jyothi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Yadaiah v. K.Jyothi and 2 Others

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

R.Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Mohan Rao Patel Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Vojjela Vishnuvardhan, Nizamabad Dist and 5 Others Vs Smt. Chukka Padmavathi, Hyd and 4 Others

M.Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

R. Vijay Gopal Vs Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Pochampally Muralidhar Rao Vs Sri Rapolu Mahesh Kumar