HANUMAIAH Vs. MASTER CHANDAN ALLEGED SON OF RAJASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS ' second appeal. Respondent -minor son of the 2nd appellant, represented by natural guardian, mother and grandson of the 1st appellant instituted O.S.282/2010 for maintenance of Rs.3,000/ - per month arraigning the appellants as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. It was asserted that 2nd defendant took in marriage on 25.5.2008 one Chaitra, the mother and natural guardian of the plaintiff -minor, who was born from out of the wedlock. It was alleged that the 2nd defendant was addicted to bad habits and had made a demand for Rs. 50,000/ - to purchase a motorcycle which when not meted out, drove his wife and minor child out of the house leading to filing Crl.Misc.78/2009 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.dn), Tiptur. Since no arrangement was made for the maintenance of the minor child and as the defendants were trying to remove the stranding trees and having no source of income led to the institution of the Suit.

(2.) SUIT was opposed by filing written statement of the 2nd defendant though admitting the marriage nevertheless denied that the plaintiff was born from out of the wedlock. It was alleged that the mother of the minor was addicted to city life and did not adjust to life in the village. In addition, it was stated that defendants are coolies and they have no landed properties in their names, while Chaitra was working in a private factory at Tiptur earning Rs. 6,000/ - per month.

(3.) IN the premise of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed two issues, whereafterwards the mother of the plaintiff was examined as PW -1 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P5, while 2nd defendant was examined as DW -1 and marked two documents Exs.D1 and D2. The trial Court having regard to the material on record held that the plaintiff was born to the 2nd defendant and Chaitra, and that defendants were in possession of 3 acre 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/1 and 28 guntas in Sy.No.12/6, as disclosed in Exs.P3 and P4, the RTC pahanis standing in the name of the 1st defendant and that the crop grown was coconut, coupled with the testimony of DW -1 in cross examination that his father, 1st defendant was carrying on agricultural operations and that the 2nd defendant was the only son to his father having sufficient income, answered the issues in the affirmative to allow the Suit and directing the 2nd defendant to pay maintenance at 'Rs.3,000/ - per month from the date of institution of the Suit i.e. 28.10.2010 by Judgment and decree dt. 16.3.2011. That Judgment and decree when carried in R.A. 25/2011, the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC at Tiptur, on a re -appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, concurred with the findings of the trial Court to dismiss the appeal by Judgment and decree dt. 4.6.2013.