Dismissed

Vamana Ramesh v. vanama Swarupa Rani

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022AS/1498/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by a husband against a Maintenance Petition judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The trial court awarded the wife maintenance and separate residence. The appellate court held that the marriage was valid, the wife was not at fault for leaving the house due to dowry demands, and the husband's failure to prove inability to pay made the discounting of maintenance erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Appellants appeal dismissed; no costs awarded.

Vamana Ramesh Vs vanama Swarupa Rani — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSI1CE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIOU

¶5

APPEAL SUIT NO:1 498 0F 2002

¶6

Appeal Under Section g6 of cpc against the Judgment and Decree dated 8-2-2002 in o.s.No.43 of 1994 cn the file of the court of the court of the senior civir Judge, at Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vamana . Ramesh, S/o Narsaiah, aged about 41 years,R/o Medara Basti, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist.

¶9

...AppellanUDefendant

¶10

AND

¶11

!11qmg.^{Sv.vaypg n31i,} ]!{o^{V. Ramesh, aged about 36 years,C/o her father} Uarata Venkataiah, Rl/o Chinna Bazar, Kothagudem, Khahmam District.

¶12

...RespondenUPlaintiff

¶13

C.M.P. NO:25 109 0F 2002

¶14

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine nign court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment and Decree dt: g-2-2002 in o s.ruo.aa ot 1994 on the file of the court of the senior civil Judge, at Kothagudem, pending disposal of A.S.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M. KIRAN REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAJDU

¶19

APPEAL SUIT No.1498 oF 2002

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the above referred suit dated O3.O2.2OO2 by which the Court below passed decree directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/per month from the date of suit towards maintenance of re spo ndent/ plain tiff .

¶22

Before going to the merits of the present appeal, it would be better to see what was the case before the trial Court and how it was dealt with by the trial Judge.

¶23

The appellant herein is husband and respondent is his wife. The respondent/plaintiff frled O.S.No.43 of 1994 seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.2,OOO/- and also an amount of Rs.4,5O,OOO/- for her separate residence. Originally the suit was filed for a sum of Rs. l,O0O/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.3,OO,0OO/- towards separate residence. However, later the wife of the appellant

¶24

¶25

ssRrv, J A-S..irle. I4!)8 of 2OO2

¶26

filed an ;nt eliocutory application and got the above reliefs amended anrl r:nhanced the claim for mainterr,rnc(' and for separa te re si Cence

¶27

l,ccording to the plaint averments it uas. tht: case of the p) ainti T that her marriage was perfornr: d rn'ith the defer-rdant 'tn 24.O2.1985. The marriage was c(,.:lsulrmated and she J( irred her husband. But, subsequentlv, at the instanr:c ol LLer father-in- lar.r,, she was forced to lr:ave her matrinioniz I house. The plaintiff has stzrl t:11 that 1-rer father in la rl, sent hcr to her parent's hous,: for brining agreed clo't'rv amount which she corrld nct arrange. Thereb-v, s 1(' <sup>ras lorced lo stay at the h o rrse of her paren(rj.^'Ihe record shows tl-rat subsequentiy tLL,,: dr:fendant i.e., appelle nt, herein liled a marriage O.P. viclt: iM.['.No.117 of 198'7 tre ore the same Court ald sought for dissolution of the mzrrr iage. Hor,r'ever, the said petition rvas; dismissed bv th<' trri I Court. The Plaintiff has clairnr,d that her husbar rcl h rs got 1/3 share in the joint fanL;ly t,usiness and _joint l: rrLilv property hr: u,as earning Rs. tl,5t)0/- per month sanc sought lour decree

¶28

¶29

SSRAI, J A.5.No.7498 oJ 2OO2

¶30

The defendant i.e., appellant herein contested the suit, Iiled written statement denying all the material averments except his marriage with the plaintiff herein. The Court below framed 4 issues in the initial stage and later framed 3 more additional issues. During the trial the respondent/plaintiff has been examined as Pwl and one more witness was examined on her behalf. Ex.Al to A9 were marked by the plaintiff. Whereas, the appellant/defendant himself was examined as DWI and DW2 also examined on his behalf. He did not produce any documents

¶31

The trial Court having considered oral evidence and the documents produced before tl.e Court and also arguments of both parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim maintenance as well as separate residence from her husband. However, basing on the evidence placed before the Court, the suit was partly decreed, directing the appellant herein to^pay a

¶32

¶33

SSRN, J A.S.ivo. J 498 oJ 2OO2

¶34

sum of Fls 1000/- tou,ards maintenanc(: and 1?s.1i0,000/-

¶35

tovt ar<i s :le )arate residence of the responden t / plaintiff

¶36

7 . i'he: p re sent appeal is iiied on the follovr.iriEr gi:,:unds: J'he t ri;rl Court committed an error in -r olding that item N os.2 aLnd 3 of petition schedule prop(:r-(y itre joint famil5, pro )€rties. The appellant claims Jrat he has nothinl3 to do rvith the said property anrl ht: is dependent or-r his falhr r. The appellant further clainred tlrert the Court below erre 1 ir-r directing him to pay nt:rtrr-enance of Rs. 1,O00,r p,-ir month n,ithouL giving an.l' fin<[i:rg that the appellant is in a position to pay the amount. [[e is not in position to lav the amount. He has no separ'€ 1.(:r income of his own. lJc cannot pay Rs.50,00O/- as dire<:te: by the trial Court tr,u ards separate residence ol the responrlent, plaintiff, thereby sought for settin6t, aside the judgmcnt a; rd decree.

¶37

B. Tl.ris rLppr.al u,as filed during 2002. In fzLct, the origir-ral sui iiled by the respondcnt was irr 199.1. Even

¶38

¶39

SSRN, J 4.5.No.7498 of 2OO2

¶40

though the mater is listed on several occasions, there was no representation for the appellant.

¶41

9 Now the point for consideration is:

¶42

Whether the Court belotu committed an etTor tn directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,OOO/ - per month and Rs.SO,OOO/ - towards maintenance apart from directing him to paA Rs.SO,OOO/ - louards separate residence of the plaintiff.

¶43

IO. POINT:

¶44

The parties to the appeal are none other than the wife and husband and their marriage is not in dispute. The plaintiff who was examined as PWl has claimed that though her marriage with the appellant herein was consummated, she was forced to stay at her parent's house in view of her failure to satisfy the demand of her father-inlaw for dowry. Apart from the present appeal, there are two more appeal suits pending between these parties. The record would shou, that after sending the plaintiff to her parent's house, the appellant herein ftled a petition under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of

¶45

¶46

ssRAI, J A.S.)Jt. 7498 oJ 2OO2

¶47

marriage wrth the piarntiff, but it^q,r-t:; dismissed

¶48

Theref,rrr:, it is very clear that the appellar-r: u,as not in mood r-o re:eive his wiie and to maintain hcr'. lt is not his case tlrat h3 rl,as sending money for the maintsrralce of his wife u,hile she was staying at her parent's ^ 0us3 Being husband o' t-hr: respondent/ plaintiff, it rs tlrr: ,lutv of the appellzrrt L erein to look aftcr the <sup>/elfarc of LL:r, r.r,ife. The Court belo.v has considerecl the evidencc of-^j)Ws I anrl 2 and als;o th.: evidence of DWs I and 2 which^,.r,c,,r1d disclose that the ap rellant has got sirare in the joint ta rr ii-r, property arrd he has c,rnvenientlv chzrnqed the name of 1he trusiness which was ir: tris name in lavour of his mrrtl.r:.- to escape the pa'lmer t of maintenance and to escirpc his liability to look aft-er tl re welfare of his rvife

¶49

As have alrea(ly stated thc rvil'e i.e., responrlent 'plaintiff being aggrieved by tlre or,lrrr by which the appella tt herein was directed to pay Rs.1,0C0/- per month and lis.5O,O00/- for separate residr:rt:i: preferred another apl eill seeking enhancement. The :41tr:llarrt could not place ar ry record to shou, that he has no nrcan,s to pay

¶50

¶51

SSRJII, J A.S.No.149a oJ 2OO2

¶52

the maintenance. The record would disclose^{that the} appellant having married^{the respondent deserted her, Iiled} petition for divorce. He has got money to^{prefer appeals} against the dismissal of his divorce^{petitionbefore High} Court and also before Hon'ble Supreme^Court.The appellant was aged about^{33 years at the time of the suit.} Being an able bodied^{person,he can earn his livelihood} and also money for the^{maintenanceof his wife' The trial} Court considered^{not only} his^{oral evidenceand documents} produced by the respondent/^{plaintiff came. tocorrect} conclusion while^{passing decree infavour ofthe} respondent. Therefore, I^{see no merits in the appeal and} hence, the appeal is liable to^{be dismissed. Accordingly,it} is dismissed.

¶53

In the result,^{the appeal is dismissed.No costs'}

¶54

As a sequel,^{pendingMiscellaneousApplications,if}

¶55

any, shall stand^closed.

¶56

Sd/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t1D

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

The Senior Civil Judge, at llothagudenr, Khammam District. (With records)

¶60

One CC to SRI M. KIRAN REDDY. Advocate IOPUCI

¶61

Two CD Copies

HIGH COUR'r

DATED:19l0gl2022

ORDER

":-
/a
./ )',:' 1.: 3 r; ,.l ,t>
b
irl- 1 il i,r I t rl,f,i
"

¶66

AS.No.1498 ct 2002

¶67

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS.

Vamana Ramesh v. vanama Swarupa Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vamana Ramesh v. vanama Swarupa Rani

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

Sardar Omkar Singh Vs S. Sarbhajeet Singh

M/s Laxminarayana Medical Agencies Vs Margadarshi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Neelakantam Shekar and Anr.

V.Swarlupa Rani Vs v.Ramesfh

Mohammaed Nadeem Ullah Khan Vs Mohammed Akber Ali and 2 Others

B.Sivareddy. Vs the Dist,.Collector,M.B.Nagar. and 19 Others