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.
AP HIGH COURT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.146 of 2019
NALLAKULA SURESH
Versus
NALLAKULA ELESH
ORDER: ( per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Heard Sri D.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri C.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the respondents, apart
from perusing the entire material available on record.
2. First respondent herein, represented by his mothersecond respondent, filed H.M.O.P.No.91 of 2015, on the file of
the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District
Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, under sub-Section (2)
of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the
first respondent herein, who is a minor. The said Original
Petition was contested by the respondent-appellant herein by
way of filing counter.
3. On the basis of the pleadings available on record, the
learned Judge determined the following point for
consideration:
“whether the first petitioner is entitled for
grant of maintenance as prayed for?.
4. During the course of trial, second respondent herein
examined herself as P.W.1 apart from examining one
AVSS,J & MGR,J
F.C.A.No.146 of 2019
2
Smt.Eluru Suvarna Kumari as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to
A5. Appellant herein examined himself as R.W.1 and filed no
documents.
5. The learned Judge partly allowed the Original Petition
by directing the respondent-appellant herein to pay
maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month to the first
petitioner/first respondent herein on or before 5th day of every
succeeding month from the date of the order. The present
appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,
challenges the validity and the legal sustainability of the said
order and decree rendered by the learned Judge, Family
Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West
Godavari District.
6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
order passed by the learned Judge, which is impugned in the
present appeal, is highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of
evidence and probabilities of the case. It is further argued by
the learned counsel that the respondents herein did not place
any valid evidence on record to demonstrate that the first
respondent herein is the biological son of the appellant herein
and that the non-examination of Ex.A1-DNA test report is
fatal to the case of the respondents herein. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel that, having regard to the
contradictory versions put forth by the second respondent
herein, with regard to her status and the alleged relationship
AVSS,J & MGR,J
F.C.A.No.146 of 2019
3
with the appellant, the learned Judge ought to have
dismissed the Original Petition. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the documents, filed on
behalf of the respondents herein, are highly irrelevant and
ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Judge,
Family Court.
7. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel
for the respondents that there is absolutely no error nor there
exists any infirmity in the impugned order and, in the
absence of the same, the order passed by the Court below is
not amenable for any correction under Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act. It is also the submission of the learned
counsel that, in view of the oral and documentary evidence,
adduced on behalf of the respondents herein, the order
passed by the Court below cannot be faulted. It is also the
submission of the learned counsel that the findings recorded
by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru in
S.C.No.11 of 2009 attained finality with regard to Ex.A1-DNA
report, which was marked as Ex.P5 in the above said
Sessions Case. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel that, in view of the absence of any infirmities in the
impugned order, the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court is
impermissible.
8. In the above background, now the issue that emerges
for consideration of this Court is: “whether the order and
AVSS,J & MGR,J
F.C.A.No.146 of 2019
4
decree rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Eluru,
warrant any interference of this Court?”.
9. The information available before this Court, in clear
and vivid terms, reveals that, in order to substantiate their
case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the
petitioners-respondents herein and Exs.A1 to A5 were also
marked. Though the appellant herein examined himself as
R.W.1, no document was marked on his behalf.
10. It is required to be noted that, earlier, when the second
respondent herein gave a police report, the same was
registered as Cr.No.226 of 2009 on the file of the Station
House Officer, Eluru I Town Law & Order Police Station for
the alleged offences under Sections 417, 420 and 376 IPC.
The same was taken on file as S.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru. It is not in
dispute that the appellant herein was acquitted in the said
Sessions Case, disbelieving the version of the prosecution as
to the alleged deceit.
11. During the course of trial, in the said Sessions Case,
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.
12. 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.
13. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Eluru, which is impugned in the present
appeal, shows that the learned Judge, after meticulously and
elaborately considering the entire material available on record
and by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, arrived at
the conclusions. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
there are no merits in the present appeal, which warrant
interference of this Court with the order passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court.
AVSS,J & MGR,J
F.C.A.No.146 of 2019
6
14. Accordingly, Family Court Appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
15. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI,J
___________________
M.GANGA RAO, J
27th November, 2019.
Tsy
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.