Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kancherla Srinivasa Rao, vs Kancharla Nagini, on 1 July, 2024
1
GN,J. & KM, J.
F.C.A.No.8 of 2018
APHC010013562024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3487]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 8/2024
Between:
Kancherla Srinivasa Rao, ...APPELLANT
AND
Kancharla Nagini and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KUNTAMUKKALA SAI SREE SANJAY
The Court made the following:
Heard Sri Rama Rao Kochiri, learned Counsel for the
Applicant/Appellant and Sri Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay, learned
Counsel for the Respondents.
2) It is an unfortunate case of complete defiance of a litigant to
interlocutory orders passed and directions issued by this Court. To
state that the application is motivated would be an understatement and
it would not be far from truth if we were to hold that the application is
GN,J. & KM, J.
actuated by utter disregard to the orders of this Court. The applicant is
the Appellant and is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of
the Family Court, dated 17.11.2023, whereby the Appellant was
directed to pay maintenance to each of the Respondents at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month. The said order came to be passed in
November, 2023. But, till date, not a single rupee has been paid by the
Appellant to either of the Respondents, which includes a minor son also.
This Court, while entertaining the Appeal, by order, dated 07.02.2024,
was pleased to pass an interim order in the following terms:
"Heard.
Having regard to the reasons mentioned in the grounds of
appeal and taking into account the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, there shall be interim stay of all further
proceedings, pursuant to the Order and Decree, dated 17.11.2023,
passed in F.C.O.P.No. 1673 of 2018 on the file of Court of the
learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge,
Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, subject to the
petitioner/appellant paying half of the arrears, within a period of six
(06) weeks from today and continue to pay half of the amount
awarded towards future maintenance, as indicated supra. It is
made clear that in the event of default in complying with any one of
the aforesaid conditions within the time stipulated, this order
automatically shall stand rescinded and it is open for the
respondents/petitioners to proceed in accordance with law."
3) A bare reading of the order would suffice to infer that stay of the
operation of the impugned judgment of the Family Court was contingent
upon the Appellant complying with the conditions imposed by this Court
while granting the interim relief. The condition imposed was that the
Appellant shall deposit 50% of the arrears of maintenance within six
weeks and that apart he was required to continue to pay 50% of the
amount awarded by the Family Court under the impugned judgment.
GN,J. & KM, J.
4) The matter was relisted before this Court on 26.06.2024 and the
matter was directed to be relisted on 28.06.2024 and with a direction
that the Appellant would comply with the interim order, dated
07.02.2024, by the next date of hearing. The matter was listed on
28.06.2024 and in the interregnum, on 27.06.2024 the instant
Application came to be filed i.e. the application for modification of the
interim order.
5) This Court would have appreciated the application had it been
filed within the time stipulated by the co-ordinate Bench for compliance
of the conditions imposed. It is not that a day or two was granted, but, a
prolonged period of six weeks time was granted to the Appellant to
comply with the condition of depositing 50% of the arrears amount and
50% of the amount awarded as maintenance. Neither having been
done and after the matter was relisted after passage of nearly more
than four and half months and after this Bench directed compliance, the
instant application came to be moved. This singular fact reflects the
malicious attitude of the Appellant and his scant disregard to the orders
of this Court. The application is preferred after a second direction is
issued by this Court directing him to comply with the conditional order
passed. In the event the Appellant was aggrieved by the nature of the
interim relief and that too at his instance, the Appellant ought to have
forthwith taken steps to either have it challenged or ought to have
sought for reconsideration of the conditions imposed under the interim
order. Having done neither and having sat on it with the supreme
GN,J. & KM, J.
confidence of getting away scot-free, the application is nothing but an
afterthought and clearly an attempt to browbeat the Court and a riposte
to the direction, dated 26.06.2024. The very fact that the Appellant was
not agitated or aggrieved by the interim order, dated 07.02.2024, can be
inferred from his conduct. Having accepted the order and when insisted
upon by the Court for compliance of the same, coming up with such an
application is nothing but a mala fide exercise of the judicial process
initiated with the aim of defeating the orders passed by this Court.
6) The question that stares at this Court is whether it is in the
interest of justice dispensation system to condone such contumacious
behaviour, which in our opinion, would be a great disservice to the
justice dispensation system and would clearly embolden such elements
into disregarding lawful orders and directions of this Court. If such
conduct is to be condoned, it would only be at the cost of belittling the
Institution and diluting its standing and would encourage unscrupulous
litigants to chance their arm at wilfully disobeying orders of this Court.
7) Despite sufficient time having been granted and despite nearly
five months time having lapsed, today, the learned Counsel for the
Appellant comes up with a lame duck argument that hearing be
adjourned to enable the Appellant to approach the Respondents and
seek permanent solution.
8) We would have appreciated the same had the Appellant even
attempted to satisfy the impugned order in so far as it relates to the
GN,J. & KM, J.
minor child. The said submission which the learned Counsel claims to
have made on the basis of the instructions received by him during the
course of the day, in our considered opinion, is suspect and does not
inspire confidence in the Court.
9) The narration above would clearly demonstrate a conduct which
is not merely reflective of unwillingness, but an open defiance to the
orders of this Court. We are constrained to say and to infer so in view
of the attempts being made by the Appellant post the second direction,
dated 26.06.2024, in the form of an application for modification and
trying to construct arguments based on the provisions of Section 18(3)
of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The reliance on the
said provision even assuming it if to be true does not in any manner
detract from the order directing payment of maintenance to the minor
child, whose parentage is not denied by him.
10) The learned Counsel for the Appellant would try to further
buttress his case by placing reliance on the alleged complaint by the
wife/1st Respondent, dated 29.08.2021, addressed to the Station House
Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet. On a reading of the same,
what can be gathered is that in anticipation of the dissolution of the
marriage between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, the 1st
Respondent appears to have come to an arrangement for marrying
another person and during the subsistence of her marriage with the
Appellant, she claims to have married the other person, which
apparently is no marriage in the eye of law. But, a further reading of the
GN,J. & KM, J.
complaint would reveal that the said person was already married and
his first marriage was also subsisting and that he has abandoned the 1st
Respondent after a few days. Assuming the facts to be correct, what
we can infer is that the marriage is said to have been performed
between the 1st Respondent and a third party was farce as the said third
party was already married and which marriage was subsisting and even
in the case of the 1st Respondent, the marriage between her and the
Appellant was subsisting and that after a few days she has been
abandoned by both the Appellant and the third party.
11) That apart, on a prima facie analysis of the above facts, it cannot
be stated that it would be a case that would be covered under the
provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act. What can be
inferred from the word „unchaste‟ is that a person commits an act
deliberately and voluntarily and knowing fully well that it is an act which
cannot be defined as being chaste.
12) If the facts narrated in the complaint are viewed in this
background, it would only reveal a picture of a woman, who has been
wronged by a person, whom she believed to have legally married. In
that view also, we do not see any prima facie ground to deny
maintenance to the 1st Respondent also.
13) In view of the defiant act and complete disregard to the orders
and directions of this Court, and the interim order being conditional upon
compliance of deposit, as directed on 07.02.2024, and the failure to
GN,J. & KM, J.
comply with the condition, which, in our opinion, appears to be
deliberate, the Appellant is not entitled to the benefits from the interim
order.
14) In fact, the co-ordinate Bench has categorically observed that any
failure would result in the automatic cancellation of the interim order.
That being the case, the interim order, dated 07.02.2024, having spent
itself, and on account of it having been rescinded automatically,
question of modifying the same does not arise. The application being
wholly misconceived and having been made with a deliberate intention
of defeating the orders of this Court and being a motivated act, we are
of the considered opinion that the conduct of the Appellant cannot be
condoned and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
15) The interim order having stood automatically vacated, the efforts
of the Appellant to defy the orders not being backed by any legality, this
Court deems it appropriate to impose exemplary costs for not only
defiance, but also the amount of judicial time that has been lost on
account of defiant attitude and contumacious conduct of the Appellant.
16) Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2024 is rejected with costs of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The said amount shall be
deposited by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar
General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the amount shall be
deposited in this Court within a period of one week from today. In the
event such deposit is not made within one week from today, the
GN,J. & KM, J.
Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, shall take
consequential steps to have this amount recovered. In the event of
such deposit, the Registrar General shall ensure that a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is paid to the Respondents
and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is
paid to the account of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services
Authority.
17) In the event the trial Court is moved by the Respondents for
executing the judgment, the trial Court shall expeditiously consider the
said application and dispose of the same.
______
GN, J.
______
KM, J.
cs
