Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.V. Raghavulu vs Paramata Sripallavi on 24 September, 2024
APHC010408982007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 194/2007
Between:
1. P.V. RAGHAVULU, S/O MAHALAKSHMI AGRICULTURE R/O
SURYANAGAR, AMALAPURAM, E.G.DIST
...APPELLANT
AND
1. PARAMATA SRIPALLAVI, D/o P.V. Raghavulu Student R/o C/o
P.Vazram, Vemagirigattu, Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry, E.G.District
...RESPONDENT
Appeal against the Judgement and decree in OS No.35/2004 on the file
of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, FTC, Rajahmundr dated 12/12/2006
IA NO: 1 OF 2007(ASMP 759 OF 2007
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
To stay all further proceedigns in pursuance of the decree and Judgement in
OS No.35/2004 on the file fo the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, FTC,
Rajahmundry dated 12.12.2006 pending disposal fo the above A.S.
No.194/2007.
IA NO: 2 OF 2007(ASMP 1046 OF 2007
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
extend the period of stay for 4 weeks
IA NO: 3 OF 2007(ASMP 1589 OF 2007
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
permit the petitioner herein to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant
in the suit account i.e. OS No. 35/04 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, E.G.District in the interest of justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(ASMP 1236 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the executing court i.e., the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram,
East Godavari District to proceed with EP.No. 16 of 2009 in Os.no. 35 of 2004
in the interest of justice
IA NO: 2 OF 2010(ASMP 2228 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
expedite the appeal and fix an early date and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. G JAYAPRAKASH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
The Court made the following:
Judgment:
The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2006
in O.S.No.35 of 2004 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge
(Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The suit is filed for
seeking maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.5,00,000/- towards
marriage expenses under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956, from the defendant and for a charge on the property of the
defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as
follows:
It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant born
through his wife Smt. P. Vajram on 10-4-1980 and the marriage between the
defendant and the plaintiff‟s mother had taken place about 30 years ago.
Unfortunately, differences arose between them subsequent to the birth of the
plaintiff and they are living apart since 1984. Ever since the plaintiff‟s mother
brought up the plaintiff and she claimed maintenance for herself and children
against the defendant. The plaintiff has been studying B.Sc., final year in Arts
College, Rajahmundry and her mother is unable to maintain her. Now, the
plaintiff is to be married. So far the defendant has not paid even a pie towards
marriage expenses to the plaintiff despite plaintiff‟s mother protested many
a times personally and through mediators. The defendant is an Ex-MLA as
well as Ex-Minister and is getting pension and other allowances of Rs.20,000/-
per month and also acquired several landed properties in Survey Nos.152 to
156 of Tandavapalli Village in an extent of about Ac.20-00 and also got
a house bearing No.3-78 and also another land in an extent of Ac.5-00 in
various Survey numbers of Tandavapalli Village and also owns another house
in S.No.413/13 at Suryanagar, Amalapuram, which is worth about
Rs.20 lakhs. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the
defendant for maintenance as well as marriage expenses of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Hence, the suit.
3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as
follows:
It is contended that the plaintiff‟s mother was concubine of the
defendant long ago and there were no issues to her through the defendant.
The plaintiff‟s mother along with her daughter, the plaintiff herein, filed
a maintenance case against the defendant and out of humanitarian grounds,
the defendant agreed to pay maintenance to them and accordingly paid
maintenance to the plaintiff till she attained majority. The defendant is paying
monthly maintenance to the plaintiff‟s mother. The defendant got children
through his wife and he is living with them. He is getting a pension of
Rs.1,200/- and he has to maintain his family. He has no movable or
immovable properties. As such, the plaintiff had no cause of action for filing
the suit. The plaintiff‟s mother got a terraced building at Vemagirigattu and
Ac.1-00 of land and the plaintiff got half share in the same. He prayed to
dismiss the suit.
4. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed
the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of maintenance and
marriage expenses as prayed for ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff‟s mother is the wife of defendant ? and
(3) To what relief ?
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 are
examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 are marked. On behalf of the defendant,
D.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B-1 to B-7 are marked.
6. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides,
the trial Court decreed the suit with costs awarding Rs.2,000/- per month
towards maintenance to the plaintiff payable by 5th of every succeeding month
commencing from the date of filing of the suit and the defendant shall bear
marriage expenses of the plaintiff at the time of her marriage.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in
decreeing the suit, the defendant has preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel, representing
Sri G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and
Sri K. Satyanand, learned counsel, representing Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned
counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
9. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the judgment of
the Court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the
case and the Court below failed to consider that the appellant has contended
that the respondent is not his daughter and there is no relationship of father
and daughter and she is not a legal heir and is not entitled for any relief as
there is no marriage between the appellant and P.W.2. He would further
contend that the Court below ought to have considered that the plaintiff‟s
mother is a concubine and there are no issues through the defendant and she
lived at her choice and the defendant agreed to pay maintenance on
humanitarian grounds and he would further contend that the trial Court came
to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit and the appeal may be allowed by
setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that
on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly
decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the
learned trial Judge.
11. Now, the points for determination in the present appeal are:
(1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit ? and
(2) To what extent ?
12. Point No.1: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?
The case of the appellant/defendant is that the mother of the plaintiff
was the concubine of the defendant long ago and there were no issues to her
through the appellant and the mother of the plaintiff along with her daughter
filed a maintenance case against the defendant and out of humanitarian
grounds, the appellant agreed to pay maintenance to them and accordingly
maintenance was paid to the plaintiff till she attained her majority and now the
defendant is not paying maintenance to the plaintiff and the defendant is
paying maintenance to the plaintiff‟s mother.
13. The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would contend that the
respondent is the daughter of the defendant born through his wife Vajram and
the marriage between the defendant and the mother of the plaintiff had been
taken place on 10-4-1980 and unfortunately differences arose between the
plaintiff‟s mother and the defendant. He would further contend that now the
plaintiff has been studying B.Sc., final year in Arts College, Rajahmundry and
her mother is unable to maintain herself and now the plaintiff is to be married
and so far as the defendant has not even paid a single pie towards marriage
expenses of the plaintiff, despite the plaintiff‟s mother protested many a times
personally and through mediators and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the
suit.
14. It is relevant to say that the plaintiff‟s mother filed a maintenance
case against the appellant and the same was dismissed on a joint memo filed
by the appellant and P.W.2 and the defendant had been undertaken to look
after the welfare of P.W.2 and her children and later the maintenance amount
was not paid to the plaintiff after she attains majority. The same is not at all
disputed by the appellant herein. The contention of the appellant is also to be
that since the plaintiff attained majority, he is not paying any maintenance to
the plaintiff. As stated supra, the maintenance proceedings were ended with a
joint memo filed by P.W.2 and the defendant, in which the defendant
undertaken to pay the maintenance to the plaintiff herein till she attains
majority and subsequently after the plaintiff attained majority, the appellant is
not paying any maintenance to the plaintiff and that she was constrained to
approach the Civil Court under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act for claiming maintenance.
15. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act reads as
follows:
"20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.--(1) Subject to the
provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to
maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or
infirm parents.
(2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or
her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.
(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm
parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the
unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or
herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.
Explanation.--In this section "parent" includes a childless step-mother."
16. As per the case of the plaintiff, she was totally neglected by the
defendant. It is the specific case of the respondent/plaintiff that her welfare
was looked after by her mother and at present she is studying B.Sc., final year
and her mother is unable to maintain herself and that she filed the present suit
for seeking maintenance from the defendant herein. It is not at all disputed
that the plaintiff intended to pursue her studies and she is unable to maintain
herself, but the fact remains that the plaintiff‟s mother filed a maintenance
case against the defendant and in view of the compromise between both the
parties in the maintenance case, the defendant is paying maintenance to the
plaintiff‟s mother. As noticed supra, after attaining the majority, the appellant
is not paying any maintenance to the plaintiff and the same is admitted by the
defendant himself. The paternity of the plaintiff is disputed by the appellant.
The material on record shows that in Ex.A-1 Secondary School Certificate
(SSC) of the plaintiff, name of the plaintiff‟s father is mentioned as „Sri P.V.
Raghavulu‟ i.e., the defendant herein. The learned counsel for respondent
would contend that the plaintiff has been selected in APPSC Group-II
examinations and she was appointed as a Deputy Tahsildar in the month of
October, 2009 and now she is working as a Tahsildar in Revenue service.
A copy of the appointment order of the plaintiff is also placed on record. In the
said proceedings also, the name of the plaintiff‟s father is shown as „P. Veera
Raghavulu‟ i.e., the defendant herein.
17. The plaintiff‟s mother is examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 is none other
than the plaintiff‟s mother. As per her evidence, she preferred M.C.No.4 of
1988 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate‟s Court,
Rajahmundry and maintenance was granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and
subsequent to attaining majority by the plaintiff, the defendant is not paying
maintenance to the plaintiff.
18. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant relied on
the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 is the defendant and D.W.2 is his wife.
The evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 goes to show that the defendant paid
maintenance in view of the compromise in between both the parties in the
maintenance case proceedings to P.W.2 and also paid to P.W.1 till she
attained majority. The contention of the appellant is that on the advice of
elders only, he agreed to pay maintenance to P.W.2 and also to P.W.1 till she
attains majority. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that on
the advice of elders only, the defendant paid monthly maintenance to P.W.2
and her daughter till she attained majority. There is ample evidence on record
to show that the defendant is paying maintenance to P.W.2 and also paid to
P.W.1 till she attained majority and after attaining majority, the defendant is
not paying monthly maintenance to the plaintiff which leads to institution of the
suit by the plaintiff under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act. As per Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, a Hindu
is legally bound to maintain his children whether legitimate or illegitimate, it is
purely a moral obligation.
19. By giving reasons, the trial Court ordered monthly maintenance of
Rs.2,000/- per month to the plaintiff herein. As stated supra, it is brought to
the notice of this Court by both the learned counsel on record that the plaintiff
was selected in Group-II Service Examination conducted by the APPSC and
was appointed as a Deputy Tahsildar in Revenue Service in the month of
October, 2009 and now she is working as a Tahsildar. It is also not in dispute
by both sides that the defendant paid an amount of Rs.41,000/- to the plaintiff
in execution proceedings towards arrears of maintenance. The learned
counsel for appellant would contend that now the appellant/defendant is aged
about 91 years and he is suffering with all old age ailments, which is not at all
disputed by the learned counsel for respondent. The learned counsel for
respondent would contend that the appellant is an Ex-MLA and Ex-Minister
and he is liable to pay maintenance as ordered by the learned trial Judge till
September, 2009, since the plaintiff secured employment in the month of
October, 2009.
20. As stated supra, the plaintiff is well settled now and she is working as
a Gazetted Officer in Revenue Service of the State Government and the
appellant is aged about 91 years, because of old age he is suffering with all
old age ailments and therefore, it is desirable to modify the monthly
maintenance of Rs.2,000/- granted by the trial Court as the plaintiff is entitled
to monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- from the date of suit till September,
2009. It was admitted by both the learned counsel that the plaintiff received
an amount of Rs.41,000/- towards arrears of maintenance from the defendant.
Therefore, the said amount of Rs.41,000/- has to be deducted from out of total
arrears of maintenance to be paid by the appellant, now modified by this
Court.
21. Point No.2:- To what extent ?
In the result, the appeal suit is partly allowed by modifying the judgment
and decree dated 12-12-2006 in O.S.No.35 of 2004 passed by the trial Court
as the plaintiff is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) per month from the date of filing of the suit till September,
2009 from the defendant. The rest of the judgment of the trial Court holds
good. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party is directed
to bear their own costs in the appeal.
//TRUE COPY//
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J
To,
2. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:24/09/2024
ORDER
