Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nallakula Suresh vs Nallakula Elesh on 27 November, 2019
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
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 mother- second 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