A.P.H.C.CASE LAW - ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Or.39 rule 1 and 2 - non disposal of IA - the interlocutory application was adjourned time to time, it appears nearly 23 months as on today. It appears there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to non-disposal of the interlocutory application for these long period, definitely the petitioner ought to have suffered a lot. In view of the same, this Court is of the 4 opinion that the Court below has to dispose of the I.A.No.611 of 2018 expeditiously

Consent Divorce under Section 13(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - I.A. to waive the cooling-off period of six months time - The Court below, on perusal of H.M.O.P. along with the above said I.A. found missing of some marital dates as mentioned in the order dated 10.09.2020 and hence, dismissed the said I.A. - nothing to intefere and directed to persue the same in trial court.

Senior citizens - Speedy Trail of case whether it be civil or criminal = It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether those are civil or criminal or service or any type of litigation to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time. The Courts have to remember that the right to speedy trial of cases before the Courts is recognized to be a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Or.39 rule 1 and 2 cpc - urgent notice - when the trial Court in its discretion has directed issuance of urgent notice to the respondents without immediately addressing the request of the petitioner. It cannot be stated that the relief, as such sought in the petition, was refused. Before taking any decision in the matter, the trial Court intends to hear the other side

Family court - Maintainance under Hindu Adoptions and Mainatainance Act Sec.20[2] - the DNA test report, issued by the APFSL, Red Hills, Hyderabad, which is Ex.A1 in the present case, was marked as Ex.P5. A copy of the said report-Ex.A1 is placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents herein, wherein APFSL concluded about the biological relationship between AVSS,J & MGR,J F.C.A.No.146 of 2019 5 the appellant and the first respondent herein. It is also required to be noted that the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru in S.C.No.11 of 2014 recorded a finding that, out of the cohabitation between the appellant and the second respondent herein, the second respondent herein gave birth to the first respondent herein. The said finding, as rightly observed by the Family Court, attained finality.Admittedly, appellant herein is working as a System Engineer in M/s IBM Private Limited. Though the respondents herein claimed Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance of the first respondent herein, the learned Judge, Family Court granted maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month only to the first respondent herein.

Family Court - Maintainance order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. - No appeal lies - As per sub-Section (2) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court against an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the impugned order is an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present appeal does not lie before this Court.

Family court - Hindu Adoption and Maintainance Act - In the absence of any material to show that the wife and her daughter have any source of income, and on the other hand, when there is material on record to show that the appellant has agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.24 cents and Ac.3.35 cents in Bandapalli village and also a house bearing D.No. 62-8-24 at Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to each of the respondents cannot be said to be on a higher side.

Family court - enhancing maintaiance from Rs.3,000 to Rs.30,000/- = held that having regard to the status of the appellant working as Assistant Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and getting gross salary of Rs.1,65,000/- which is evident from the admissions made by him in his evidence, we are of the view that the trial Court rightly enhanced the maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to her daughter respectively. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be improper or incorrect.

Or.21, rule 58 [1][b] -vs- Or.21 rule 58 [2] - for first count - no equiry is neccessary for dismissing the claim petition in limini but for second count - Trail is complusory when findings was given - execution court committed wrong - remanded for trial by setting aside the order as the execution court found that the sale agreement is a false one.

Covid situation, it is very difficult for any bailiff or Field Assistant to be after the respondent, even if the Executing Court grants relief in favour of the petitioners

whether the procedure that is followed in appointing arbitrator is in accordance with law?

When exparte interim injunction was obtained by suppressing the material facts, it can be asked to vacate or varied or modified under Or.39 rule 4 of CPC

OR.39 Rule 1&2 CPCP - trial court can considered the evidence while assessing prima faice allegations as there is no wrong and further at the time of interim stage guniness of registered gift deed can not be decided and as such prima faice it shows that when the property is not in exclusive possession of plaintiff as per his documents, no interim injunction be granted against co owners .