Mopidevi Srinivasa Rao, vs Mopidevi Srilatha Alias Makani ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 780 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                          MAIN CASE No.A.S.No.326 of 2016
                                        PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No     DATE                                                                   Office
                                               ORDER

Note 10.02.2022 RRR, J

I.A.No.1 of 2022

Respondents 2 and 3 herein along with their mother had filed O.S.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, against the petitioners herein. Respondents 2 and 3 had sought maintenance from the petitioners. The suit had been decreed on 12.11.2015 in which a decree was granted in favour of respondents 2 and 3 granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each from the date of judgment till respondents 2 and 3 attain the age of majority. The petitioners, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, have filed the present appeal before this Court.

On 12.04.2016, this Court by an order in A.S.M.P.No.749 of 2016 had granted stay of operation of the decree and judgment passed on 12.11.2015 on condition of the petitioners paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3 from the date of decree.

It appears that the 2nd respondent has attained the age of majority on 20.12.2021.

The petitioners now contend that the decree of the trial Court was for payment of maintenance up to the age of majority, whereas the order of this Court has been for payment of maintenance from the date of decree.

In the circumstances, the petitioners seek modification of the order of this Court dated 12.04.2016.

Heard Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents.

In view of the decretal order of the trial Court, the 2nd respondent would be entitled for payment of maintenance only till he attains the age of majority, which has occurred in December, 2021.

Similarly, the 3rd respondent also would be entitled for payment of maintenance only up to he attains the age of majority.

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to modify the order of this Court dated 12.04.2016 to state that henceforth the petitioners would be liable to pay maintenance to the 3rd respondent only up to he attains the age of majority.

_________ RRR, J Js.