DODIYALA KRISHNAPRASADA RAO Vs. K JAYASRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an action laid by the plaintiffs the daughters of the 1st defendant for maintenance and other reliefs.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case is that the 1st defendant was not maintaining the petitioners nor spending any amount for their education since May 1972 and turned out them and their mother out of the family house at Katevaram without any justification in May 1973 and the plaintiffs could not live with the 1st defendant without their mother as the mother df the 1st defendant and also the sister of the 1st defendant are bringing pressure that the 1st plaintiff or the 2nd plaintiff should marry the son of the sister of the 1st defendant and they apprehend that they would bring even criminal force against them for that purpose, it is also alleged that the 1st defendant became callous and kept a concubine named Sambrajyarp permanently at Guntur and hence the suit (1) for maintenance of all the plaintiffs. (2) for marriage expenses of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and (3) for customary gifts of pasupukunkuma and residential accommodation and also for recovery of the amounts entrusted to the 1st defendant, belonging to the Minor plaintiffs.

(3.) The defence is that the wife of the 1st defendant, mother of the plaintiffs is intelligent, aggressive and dominating and the 1st defendant took all steps to educate the plaintiffs initially at their native village Katevaram, at Vinayasramam, Kovur, Nidubrolu and also at Guntur and as the children were not successful in the examination inspite of all trials the 1st defendant felt that the life at Guntur town was costly and besides being useless suggested that they should go baek to their native village but the wife did not agree to stay at the native village as she has become a fashionable lady and wanted to stay in towns. It is also averred in the written statement that he is always ready and willing to perform the marriages of the p'aintiffs and maintain them and they may come and stay with him and he is prepared to bear the expenses of education and main tenance and the mother of the plaintiffs who suffered a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at his instance in O.P. No. 74/72 got filed this suit to harass him. Tne allegations of turning out of the plaintiffs from the family house in May 1973, illtreatment, keeping a concubine and abandonment of plaintiffs were all denied and consequently the other claims also were refused being unjustified and not tenable.