Page No. 1 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGECUMI
ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Present : Sri Y. VEERRAJU, IV Additional District Judgecum I Additional Family Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2018
MC No. 84 of 2016
Between:
1. Smt. Soma Aruna W/o. Shri. Soma Chandra Shekhar Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ: House wife.
2. Kum. R. Rishitha Reddy D/o. Shri Soma Chandra Shekhar Reddy, aged about 17 Years, Occ: Student. Rep by her natural mother Smt. Soma Aruna (Petitioner No.1 herein)
Both are R/o. of H. No. 1113807, Green Hills Colony, Road No.2, R.K. Puram, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District.
...Petitioners
AND
Soma Chandra Shekhar Reddy S/o. Shri Soma Narayana Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 110256/1, Vijayapuri Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
...Respondent
This petition is coming on 01.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioners and of Sri. J. Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following order;
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioners against the respondent under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2.The brief facts of the petition are that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the second respondent is the daughter of the respondent.
The marriage between the first petitioner and respondent was performed on 18.05.1994 out of their wedlock they blessed with one son and daughter and thereafter the first petitioner underwent tubectomy operation. In the year 2012 the son of the first petitioner died due to dengue fever at the age of 14 years. Thereafter the respondent was pressurizing the petitioner No.1 to undo the family operation to have another male child to carry forward his
Page No. 2 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
legacy. But the petitioner No.1 did not agree for the same and therefore, the respondent developed grudge against the first petitioner.
i) The petitioner No.1 was a house wife till the year 2013. Thereafter in the year 2013 the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Malkapuram Village
Choutuppal Mandal. The respondent had developed an inferior complex and started harassing the petitioner No.1 even on petty issues. On many occasions the respondent beat mercilessly but the petitioner did not disclose the same to her in laws and her maternal uncle as she do not want to lower the image of her husband. Finally the petitioner No.1 had constrained to approach the police and made a complaint against the respondent for harassment. The first petitioner was getting honorarium of Rs.5,000/ per month as Sarpanch.
ii) While things stood thus the respondent filed divorce petition in OP
No. 65/2015 against the first petitioner herein before this court with false allegations. The petitioners are also helpless women, leading a miserable life, there is no income except the honorarium of Rs. 5,000/ per month as sarpanch. The second petitioner is studying 12th standard in St. Joseph
Public School, Hyderabad. Where she paid a sum of Rs. 78,600/ for the 9th standard and paid an amount of Rs. 98,700/ to 7th standard, which includes college, private tuition fees etc., The said expenses are born by taking hand loans from relatives and friends.
iii) The respondent is a businessman who is doing various business activities such a real estate business, supply of sand, lorry transportation business and earning an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/. The respondent is also getting income of Rs. 5,000/ per month from agricultural yield and also getting rental income of Rs.37,000/ per month. Thus the total income of respondent per month is rs. 1,92,000/. Whereas the first petitioner is getting
Page No. 3 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
honorarium Rs. 5,000/ per month and the second respondent is student,
they are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent miserably failed to provide the basic necessities to petitioners from the day, they were thrown from the house. Therefore petitioners filed the present petition.
3.The respondent made his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed counter denying all the material allegations except the relationship. The brief avernments of the counter of the respondent are that while the first petitioner was staying with the respondent, the respondent used to give money realized from his business to first petitioner to keep the same in the house. But the respondent never asked the first petitioner for any accounts without any doubt on her. The respondent also collected the rents of the house and used to give the same to the first petitioner and thus the first petitioner mobilized/accumulated all the money give by the respondent all these years and it is nearly about 50 to 60 Lakhs. The respondent came to know that the first petitioner kept the said amount with her maternal uncles and after she went away from the house, the first petitioner purchased the plot in her name worth of Rs. 45 Lakhs and also purchased one brand new i 20 car and appoint one driver for the said car and paying Rs.10,000/ per month as salary. The first petitioner is attending to the court in the said car.
Recently the first petitioner purchased the property in Malkapur Village worth of Rs. 25,00,000/, thus the allegations that the first petitioner is getting meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/ is honorarium is false. In fact all the money earned by the respondent was doing business in the custody of the petitioner
No.1.
i) The allegations that the petitioner No.1 and her daughter have living in a small house with the help of the uncle of the petitioner is false In fact the petitioners are living in the plot purchased by the first petitioner in her name with the money of the respondent.
Page No. 4 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
ii) The further allegations that the respondent demanded the first petitioner to undo tubectomy operation is false. The death of the son of first petitioner and respondent was only with the reason of the first petitioner rude behaviour towards the respondent and his son. The first petitioner contested in the Sarpanch election with finance support of the respondent and she won the election with the efforts of the respondent. Therefore, the question of developing inferior complex does not arise. The respondent never beat the first petitioner. Inspite of that the first petitioner lodged the complaint with police with false allegations and the first petitioner created all these stories.
As the respondent filed the divorce OP 65/2015 and it is pending. The first petitioner had taken away all belongs, money, gold, silver, documents etc., except the clothes of the respondent. Apart from the said amount the first petitioner is having an amount of Rs.25.00,000/ as cash on hand. The first petitioner is having adamant behaviour and high handedness, the respondent with a shy in the society, the first petitioner mentally harassed the respondent and therefore, his health was deteriorated and he is not in a position to do any business and as a result the business was closed and as such his transport lorries and vehicles were seized by the financiers. The petitioner has got sufficient income and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4.On appearance of both the parties, the then learned Presiding Officer of the court had posted the matter for trial and thereafter the matter went on several adjournments and finally both the parties adduced evidence and submitted the arguments and posted to this day for orders.
5.At the trial, the first petitioner was examined as PW1 and got marked
Exs. P1 to P7. Ex.P1 is the wedding invitation card, Exs.P2 to P7 are the receipts issued by St. Joseph Degree and P.G. College, The maternal uncle of the petitioner by name Lakshma Reddy was examined as PW2. As against the
Page No. 5 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
evidence adduced by the petitioners, the respondent was examined as RW1.
During the course of crossexamination of PW1, the copy of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.1 is marked as Ex.R1.
6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent. Both the learned counsel also filed the written arguments.
7.Now the points that arises for determination are that :
1. Whether the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners?
2. Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves?
3. Whether the respondent has got sufficient means to pay the maintenance?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent?
5. To What relief?
8.POINT No:1
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is the legally wife and the second petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. According to the petitioners, the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners, therefore, they are living separately. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that there is no negligence nor refusal on the part of the respondent and the first petitioner on her own accord left the matrimonial home and living separately and in fact she subjected the respondent to cruelty and therefore, he filed the divorce petition in FCOP No. 65/2015.
9.To prove their respective contentions, both the parties, were examined as PW1 and RW1 respectively. It is the say of PW1 that the marriage between herself and the respondent was performed on 18.05.1994 out of their wed lock they blessed with two children ie., second petitioner herein and one son.
But the son died in the year 2012 due to Dengue fever etc., it is also an undisputed fact that the first petitioner herein was elected as Sarpanch of
Page No. 6 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
Malkapuram Village in the Panchayat elections in the year 2012. According to the petitioner No.1 the reasons for the matrimonial disputes are
1. After death of the son, the respondent used to demand the first petitioner to undue family planning operation again for male issue.
2. After the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch the respondent was feeling inferiority complex.
3. The respondent used to beat the petitioner mercilessly and thus subjected the first petitioner both mentally, physically and cruelty.
10.On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondent that she herself subjected the respondent to cruelty and he purchased the property in the name of the first petitioner but she sold the house property in the year 2014 to one V. Gopal Reddy and from out of the sale proceeds she again purchased another property, purchase one i20 car and scooty and in fact she had taken away all the house hold articles including the gold and silver articles and car and thus the petitioner No.1 is having sufficient cash on hand and she is habituated to lead luxurious life and when the business of the respondent was close to due loss. The petitioner No.1 herself left the matrimonial home on her own accord and there is no negligence nor refusal on the part of the respondent.
11.According to PW1 (S. Aruna) her mother is no more but her father is alive and she was brought up by her maternal uncle by name (Narsimha
Reddy) and others and in fact they performed her marriage. PW1 (S. Aruna) further deposes that she has no avocation and income till the year 2013 ie., till she was elected as Sarpanch. It was suggested to PW1 that the allegations that after the death of her son the respondent harassed her to have a male child again etc., are false but she denied the same. It was also suggested to
PW1 that she left the respondent along with all the belongings and established the same in a lorry but she denied the same. According to PW1
Page No. 7 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
once she visited the Police Station and lodged the complaint with police against the respondent. But there is no convincing material to show that the criminal case was filed against the respondent herein.
12.In support of the contention of the petitioners, one Laxma Reddy who is the brother of the mother of the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW2.
According to PW2 the entire marriage expenses of the first petitioner were born by him and his brothers who looked after the first petitioner right from the childhood. It is further say of PW2 that he along with his brothers are still supporting their niece ie., the first petitioner. The evidence of PW2 was tested by way of cross examination. It was suggested to PW2 that after they sold the said house property Chnada Shekhar Reddy (Respondent) was approached them and requested to settle the issue and inspite of that they did not act in accordance with the wish of Chandra Shekhar Reddy (Respondent). It was also suggested to PW2 that the allegations that the respondent (S.Chandra
Shekhar Reddy) necked out the first petitioner from her house along with the articles etc., are false and the first petitioner (Aruna) herself lef the matrimonial house on her own accord but he denied the same.
13.As against the evidence adduced by the petitioners. The respondent (S.
Chandra Shekhar Reddy) was examined as RW1. According to RW1 (S.
Chandra Shekhar Reddy) there is no negligence nor refusal on his part and the first petitioner herself left the matrimonial house. The evidence of RW1 was tested by way of crossexamination on various aspects. It is in the cross examination of RW1 that his son died due to Dengue fever. RW1 categorically deposes that she did not provide food to her son nor took care of the children and ie., the reason for the death of the son etc., there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the first petitioner has got temper behaviour and mentally nor correct etc., as alleged in the counter. RW1 categorically deposes that there was no panchayat held before the elders alleging that the
Page No. 8 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
first petitioner is not taking care of the children. But RW1 further deposes that the first petitioner approached Mahila Police, Saroor Nagar when he beat her once. It was also suggested to RW1 that he was preventing the petitioner from performing her responsibilities as Sarpanch and he used to act as
Sarpanch and there was an incident near Gram Panchayat etc.,
14.In the given case, none of the parties examined any of the elders to show that the matrimonial disputes between them was placed before the elders. Moreover it is not at all the case of the parties that they placed the matter before the elders and the names of the so called elders have not been mentioned etc., On the other hand, to prove the contentions of the respondent that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial house, he entirely relies on his sole oral testimony. Whereas to support the evidence of PW1 she examined one Laxma Reddy as PW2 as discussed supra.
15.In the given case, the main contention of the petitioners that the respondent totally neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. But the respondent has denied the same, the evidence of RW1 (S.Chandra Shekhar
Reddy) clearly and categorically goes to show that he did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights or file an application for visiting right of the daughter. On the other hand, RW1 went to the extent of so saying that he does not know about the particulars of the education of his daughter and where she is studying. It was also suggested to RW1 that because of his physical and mental harassment, the petitioner was compelled to leave the house. But he denied the same.
16.Having considered the evidence adduced on record, and in view of the reasons stated supra, that the evidence adduced by the petitioners is neared to the truth then the evidence of respondent in so far as the negligence aspect is concerned. In other words the evidence adduced by the petitioners
Page No. 9 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
clearly established and proved that the respondent neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. In such a case, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioners have established and proved that the respondent neglected and refused to maintain them and accordingly Point
No.1 is answered.
17.POINT NO.2 :
In the given case, the status of both the parties is not in dispute.
According to the petitioner she elected as Sarpanch in the year 2013 and now she is getting honorarium of Rs. 5,000/ per month and therefore, it is very difficult for her to maintain herself and the second petitioner daughter. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondent that earlier he did several businesses like real estate, transport, and sand business, but now he stopped his business and he is not doing any business at present and not getting any income.
18.In the case on hand, according to the petitioners they are unable to maintain themselves and the respondent has been getting income of Rs.
1,92,000/ per month, therefore, they are entitled to claim Rs. 64,000/ ie., at the rate of 33% of total income of respondent, towards their maintenance.
Whereas the respondent denied the same. In such a case it is for the petitioners to establish and prove that the respondent is getting such a huge income of Rs. 1,92,000/ per month on all his sources. As I already discussed about the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties.
According to the petitioners the second respondent is studying St. Josephs
Degree and P.G. College and she requires the amount not only for her maintenance but also towards the education expenses. In such of the contention of the petitioners the fee receipts issued by St. Josephs Degree and P.G. College are marked as Exs.P2 to P7. A perusal of the Exs.P2 to P7, it appears that they were issued in the name of S. Rishita Reddy for various
Page No. 10 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
amounts. Even though the respondent denied almost of the material allegations, it is not specifically denied that the second petitioner is studying in St. Josephs Degree and P.G. College.
19.The evidence on record clearly goes to show that both the parties ie., petitioner No.1 and respondent have got some properties and getting income.
With these back ground, I once again discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties to find out whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and they are entitled to claim maintenance or not. It is in the crossexamination of PW1 that she has no avocation and income till the year 2013. PW1 categorically deposes that she did not file any documents into court to show that the respondent is doing business. It was suggested to PW1 that she is having morethan rupees one Crore and have been leading luxurious life and filed the present petition so as to harass the respondent but she denied the same.
20.During the course further crossexamination PW1 categorically deposes that while she was residing with respondent, he purchased the house property in her name situated at Kothapeta. PW1 also deposes that the house property bearing Plot No. 601 situated at Indira Nagar, Saroor Nagar stands in her name. But she gave expenditure that due to the tax problem the said house property was purchased by her maternal uncle Laxma Reddy in her name. The certified copy of the said sale deed dated 15.04.2015 is marked as Ex.R1. According to Pw1 the worth of the property covered under
Ex.R1 is about 14 Lakhs. A perusal of Ex.R1, it appears that the sale deed executed by Sham Kiran and others in favour of Soma Aruna for a total consideration of Rs. 16.90 Lakhs. There is no mention in Ex.R1 ie., consideration amount thereon was paid by Laxma Reddy.
Page No. 11 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
21.The said Laxma Reddy was examined as PW2. It is the say of PW2 that they purchased the house in the name of the petitioner and now it is worth of Rs. 15 Lakhs. It was suggested to PW2 that the allegations that he purchased the said three properties in the name of the petitioner No.1 are false and that from out of the sale proceeds of the property stands in the name of the first petitioner, she purchased the same including i20 car and upon plot but he denied the same. According to PW2 he used to pay income tax every year since 10 years. In view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner No.1 that the property under Ex.R1 was purchased by Linga Reddy in her name due to Tax problem. It is for the first petitioner to prove the same. But there is no convincing material on record on that aspects.
Therefore, in the absence of any such convincing evidence, it is highly difficult to accept the contention of the first petitioner in so far as the acquisition of property covered under Ex.R1 is concerned.
22.Now coming back to the evidence of PW1, she categorically deposes that in the year 2016 she purchased i20 car and she has been engaged a driver. Again she gave an explanation that her maternal uncle has purchased the said i20 car. The evidence of PW1 itself clearly goes to show that she engaged a driver to drive i20 car. It was suggested to PW1 that she used to pay Rs. 12,000/ per month to the car driver but she denied the same. So the evidence of PW1 itself clearly established and proved that she has got i20 car and engaged one driver.
23.It is elicited from crossexamination of PW1 that she has been using iPhone 7S Model worth of Rs. 85,000/ and her daughter ie., second petitioner also using iPhone 6S Model worth of Rs. 45,000/. It was suggested to PW1 that from out of the sale proceeds of the house property situated at Kothapeta she also purchased one Activa bike, purchased plot No.
96 admeasuring 146.8 Sq. yards situated at Choutuppal Village for a total
Page No. 12 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
consideration of Rs. 10 Lakhs, but she denied the same. Similarly it was also suggested to PW1 that she herself lent amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs to her maternal uncle, but she denied the same. Finally it was suggested to PW1 that she is having morethan Rs. 1 Crore amount and leading luxurious life, but she denied the same.
24.The evidence on record clearly and categorically goes to show that while the petitioner No.1 and respondent were living together, the house property situated at Kothapeta was purchased in the name of the the first petitioner and subsequently she sold the said property etc., The evidence on record also goes to show that the house property bearing Plot No. 601 situated at Saroor
Nagar stands in the name of the first petitioner. So at present even according to the own evidence of PW1 now it is made clear that the first petitioner has got some properties both movable and immovable as stated supra and she is using iPhone 7S Model worth Rs. 85,000/.
25.The claim of the petitioners is in two folds one is towards their maintenance excluding the clothes and medical expenses.
2. Towards the future education expenses. The petitioner is also claimed total amount of Rs. 2,95,350/ towards the education expenses of second petitioner incurred by her. According to PW1 she conducted debts to meet the education expenses, but there is no convincing and legal evidence on that aspects. At best the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.P2 to P7 receipts goes to show to some extent that some amount was paid towards the college fees of the second petitioner. At the same time there is no convincing material or evidence on record to show that the petitioner No.1 contacted loans from the relatives and friends to pay the college fees of second petitioner etc., The so called relatives and friends from whom the first petitioner allegedly borrowed the loans are not examined before the court. In such a case, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioners to a sum of
Page No. 13 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
Rs.2,95,350/ towards the educational expenses incurred for earlier years is not considered.
26.Having considered the evidence on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW1 herself clearly goes to show that she has got both movable and immovable properties but at the same time there is no clarity from the evidence of PW1 what is income realized by the first petitioner on the said properties. On the other hand, even according to the first petitioner she has been getting honorarium of Rs.
5,000/ per month only. The evidence on record also goes to show that the families of both parties have got some reputation in the society and it also establishes their living condition and their social status. According to the petitioners they require the amount from respondent not only towards their maintenance but also towards the education expenses of the second petitioner. Therefore, in the set of circumstances and taking into consideration of the present cost of living and other surrounding circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners established and proved that they are unable to maintain themselves properly and accordingly
Point No.2 is answered.
27.POINT NO.3:
As I already stated supra, about the financial and social status of both the parties. It is not the case where that the respondent is prevented from doing any work and therefore, he has no income at all. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the petitioners that respondent has got several businesses and properties and he has been getting substantial income etc.,
With these back ground, now I would like to discuss the evidence of RW1 (S.
Chandra Shekhar Reddy). It is the specific case of the respondent that he used to give of his earning amount to the petitioner and he never asked the petitioner about the account and finally the petitioner No.1 left the house
Page No. 14 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
along with all his belongings, gold and silver articles, cash and document and now she is having approximately cash on hand of Rs. 50 to 60 Lakhs etc., The evidence of RW1 was tested by way of crossexamination. It is in the cross examination of RW1 that earlier he did real estate business and he was an income tax assessee.
28.RW1 (S. Chandra Shekhar Reddy) categorically deposes that he is residing in the house bearing No. 1110256/2 ie., Ground + two floors (Total three floors), four portions were given on rent and in one portion he is residing and he is getting Rs. 22,000/ per month as rent. It was suggested to
RW1 that he is getting rent of Rs. 60,000/ per month but he denied the same.
29.According to RW1 now he has not been getting any income. But at the same time he categorically deposes that at present he has got Vitara Brezza
Car and he has been using the said car worth of Rs. 8.50 Lakhs. RW1 gave an explanation that he purchased the said car by availing Bank loan. It is not the case where that the respondent and his family members have no landed properties at all. On the other hand, even according to the respondent his family has got landed properties in his village and his parents used to attend.
Similarly it is not the case where that there are other depends on the respondent. Even according to the respondent he has been living alone since five years. So unless the respondent has been getting some income, it is very difficult to maintain himself and also to pay the car loan to the Bank.
30.The evidence of both the parties clearly goes to show that the house property situated at Kothapeta was sold by the first petitioner herein to one
Venkata Gopal Reddy in the year 2004. During the course of cross examination of RW1 he categorically deposes that he purchased the said house property situated at Kothapeta on 31.01.2018 from the said Venkata
Page No. 15 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
Gopal Reddy for a total consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/. It is not as though due to some confusion or mistake RW1 stated the said fact. On the other hand, while recording the said statement of RW1 this court noted the quantum of amount in words also as Rs. 1,80,00,000/ (Rupees One Crore
Eighty Lakhs only). So the said statement made by RW1 goes a long way and it clearly shows the financial capacity of the respondent.
31.If really the contention of the respondent that he is no income at all is true and correct, how it is possible for him to purchase the house property very recently ie., in the month of January, 2018 for a huge consideration amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/ is the question for consideration before the court. For which no explanation is offered by the respondent. So the fact remains the respondent has got sufficient properties and getting sufficient income.
32.Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, and in view of the reasons stated supra, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioners established and proved that the respondent has got sufficient means and income to pay the maintenance to the petitioner No.1 and 2 and accordingly point No.3 is answered.
33.POINT NO.4:
According to the petitioners the second petitioner is studying in St.
Josephs Degree and P.G. College and she requires the amount not only for her maintenance but also the school fees. According to the petitioners the respondent has been getting income of Rs. 1,92,000/ and therefore, they claimed 33% comes to Rs. 64,00,000/ but there is no convincing material or evidence to show that the respondent has been getting such a huge income of
Rs. 1,92,000/, but the evidence on record clearly and categorically goes to show that the respondent has got some income generating properties and
Page No. 16 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
also getting income. At the same time there is no clarity from the evidence of
RW1 about his actual income. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the petitioner clearly and categorically established and proved that the respondent has got sufficient income to maintain the petitioners. Earlier an amount of Rs. 15,000/ was awarded to first petitioner and Rs.10,000/ was awarded to second petitioner towards their interim maintenance.
34.Therefore, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and in view of the present cost of living of both parities, the bonafide needs and necessities of the petitioner as well the financial and social status of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the first petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 15,000/ per month and the second petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 15,000/ per month towards their maintenance and also the education expenses of the second petitioner from the date of the petition after deducting the interim maintenance amount of paid if any and accordingly this point is answered.
35.TO WHAT RELIEF:
IN THE RESULT, petition is allowed in part asfollows:
That the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month to first petitioner towards her maintenance.
That the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month to Second petitioner towards her maintenance and also education expenses payable by the respondent on or before 5th of every succeeding month from the date of this petition ie., from 29.02.2016 after adjusting the amount paid if any towards interim maintenance.
Page No. 17 to 17 MC No. 84 of 2016
The arrears of maintenance from the date of petition till the date of order shall be payable in THREE monthly equal installments commencing from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2018
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEcum
I ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Appendix of Evidence
Witness Examined
On behalf of the Petitioner On behalf of Respondent P.W1: Smt. S. Aruna. RW1: Sri. S. Chandra Shekhar Reddy P.w2: Sri. Lakshma Reddy.
Documents Marked
On behalf of Petitioners:
Ex.P1 is the Wedding invitation card, Ex.P2 is the Fee receipt issued by St. Josephs Degree and PG College, King Koti Hyderabad, dated 03.01.2018. Ex.P3 is the Fee receipt issued by St. Josephs Degree and PG College, King Koti Hyderabad, dated 18.01.2017. Ex.P4 is the Fee receipt issued by St. Josephs Degree and PG College, King Koti Hyderabad, dated 11.01.2017. Ex.P5 is the Fee receipt issued by St. Josephs Degree and PG College, King Koti Hyderabad, dated 16.06.2016, Ex.P6 is the Fee receipt issued by St. Josephs Degree and PG College, King Koti Hyderabad, dated 11.07.2017. Ex.P7 is the Miscellaneous receipt dated 14.12.2016.
On behalf of Respondent: Ex.R1 is the True copy of Sale deed in favour of Soma Aruna ie., petitioner No.1.
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEcum
I ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT