Parimisetti Mohana Sailenda Babu v. Parimisetty Ranmayi And ANR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 51 of 2005 JUDGMENT:

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

2.

The present appeal came to be filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, assailing the judgment in O.S.No. 16 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the application filed by the son and daughter of the plaintiff and defendant through their mother, for payment of amounts towards their educational and other expenses, was allowed. 3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. The allegations in the plaint are that the defendant harassed his wife and necked her out from the house, along with the children, in the year 1989. They took shelter at their grandmother's place.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs approached the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawad by filing M.C.No. 5 of 1989 against the defendant, on the ground that he grossly neglected them. An order came to be passed in the said M.C on 14.08.1991, directing the defendant to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.200/ - to each of the petitioners in the M.C.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed M.C.No. 91 of 1999 for enhancement of monthly maintenance awarded to them in M.C.No. 8 of 1991, which was also allowed, directing the defendant to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.450/ - to each of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the defendant is paying the said maintenance amount regularly.

4.

The defendant filed his written statement disputing the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated that the defendant is a clerk working in Andhra Bank, Main Branch at Tenali, drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/ - after effecting all the deductions, from his salary. It is stated that he is having aged parents and sister and has to maintain them with his earnings. It is further stated that he purchased an apartment by borrowing amount from the bank and every month the loan instalments are being deducted from his salary. It is pleaded that except the said apartment, he has no other property. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are in the care and custody of their mother, who is having 0.82 cents of landed property worth about Rs.15 lakhs, 5 cents of house site at Gunadala of Vijayawada, worth about Rs.10 lakhs, bank deposits etc., and that the plaintiffs have no necessity of any amount for their educational expenses. It is also stated that the defendant is not in a position to pay the amounts claimed by the plaintiffs. 5.

Basing on the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by the trial court:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.29,100/ - to the 1st plaintiff and an amount of Rs.11,205/ - to the 2nd plaintiff towards medical (sic.educational) expenses incurred by their mother from their father/ defendant? (2) whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.30,000/ - in lumpsum towards their educational and other expenses every year in future from their father/ defendant? 6.

In support of their claim, the mother of the plaintiffs was examined as PW1 and the 1st plaintiff examined herself as PW2., and got marked Exhibits A1 to A11. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and closed the evidence on his side. Considering the claims and rival claims made by both parties, the trial court held as under:

" Issue No.3:

In view of my finding on issues 1 and 2, I decree the suit with costs holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim an amount of Rs.25,100/ - to the first plaintiff and an amount of Rs.11,205/ - to the second plaintiff towards educational expenses incurred by their mother from the defendant and further they are also entitled to claim an amount of Rs.30,000/ - in lumpsum towards their educational and other incidental expenses every year in future from the defendant till their educational career is completed."

7.

Reiterating the contentions raised before the lower court, the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submits that in

the year 2001, when the plaintiffs filed the suit, their age was shown as 17 years and 16 years respectively, and now, they must be aged about 30 years, and therefore, the order of the trial court must have worked out.

8.

The first limb of the order passed by the trial court refers to the payment of amounts towards educational expenses of the plaintiffs incurred by their mother. As the plaintiffs are now aged about 30 years, it can be said that they must have completed their education and even must have got settled. The second limb of the order refers to payment of Rs.30,000/ - towards the educational and other incidental expenses every year in future till their educational career is completed. As the plaintiffs are now aged about 30 years, their educational career would have been already completed. Therefore, it is clear that the order passed by the trial court has worked itself out.

9.

Having regard to the factual position, the F.C.A is dismissed, holding that as the educational career of the plaintiffs has already been completed, the question of further payment by the appellant towards educational expenses of the plaintiffs, would not arise. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _________________________ JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD 22.03.2018 DMG