Dismissed

Venigalla Srinivasa Rao v. Venigalla Nikhil

Telangana HC23 Jun 2022FCA/146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Family Court Appeal was dismissed. The High Court confirmed the lower court's order granting Rs. 10,000 per month maintenance to the respondent son until he attained majority, rejecting the appellant's claim that the son was already of majority age.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Family Court granting maintenance to the respondent.

Venigalla Srinivasa Rao Vs Venigalla Nikhil — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶2

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.146 OF 2019

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Dr.SA,J)

¶4

This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed by the appellant/father aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 12.02.2019, passed in F.C.O.P.No.1874 of 2016 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the subject F.C.O.P. filed by the respondent/son, under Section 7(1)(f) of the Family Courts Act, was allowed in part granting maintenance to the respondent/son at Rs.10,000/- per month from the month of filing the subject F.C.O.P. i.e., September, 2016 till the month of his attaining majority i.e., September, 2017 (13 months), while rejecting his claim for past maintenance for the period from October, 2013 to August, 2016.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/father would submit that the respondent/son attained majority before filing the subject F.C.O.P. There are documents to substantiate the same. But the

¶7

¶8

Dr.SA,J & JS,J F.C.A.No.146 of 2019

¶9

Court below did not consider the same and granted maintenance, as indicated above, which is erroneous and ultimately, prayed to set aside the impugned order and decree.

¶10

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/son supported the impugned order and decree.

¶11

5. To substantiate that the respondent/son is minor as on the date of filing of the subject F.C.O.P., the respondent/son filed, Ex.P2-copy of his Aadhaar card and Ex.P6-copy of his SSC Certificate. The Court below has gone into those documents and the other evidence on record and held that the respondent/son is minor as on the date of filing of the subject F.C.O.P. and granted maintenance from the date of filing the subject F.C.O.P. till he attained majority. The findings recorded by the Court below are based on the evidence on record. The Court below is justified in granting maintenance at Rs.10,000/per month to the respondent/son, as indicated above. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

¶13

Dr.SA,J & JS,J F.C.A.No.146 of 2019

¶14

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order and decree, dated 12.02.2019, passed in F.C.O.P.No.1874 of 2016 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶15

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

¶17

___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

¶18

Date: 23.06.2022 MD

Venigalla Srinivasa Rao v. Venigalla Nikhil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venigalla Srinivasa Rao v. Venigalla Nikhil

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

Syed Nawaz Pasha Vs Syeda Sabeen Ather and 3 Others

D. Nanda Kumar Vs Smt. D. Varalakshmi

K. Narasimha Chary, Medak Dist. Vs St. Krishnaveni, Nizamabad Dist.

Dr. Shivanand Badinikar Vs Basavaraj Mugali

Ranjit Raghuram Nilacanta Venkata Vs Smt Gorakavi Lakshmi Sandhya

Rahmathullah Khan Shahnoor Vs Kashifa Fatima and another