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 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