THADISINA CHINNA BABU RAO Vs. THADISINA SARALAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent, who is the daughter of the revision petitioner, filed O.S.No.47 of 2004 under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short - 'the Act') before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam seeking maintenance etc., from the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.823 of 2004 to dismiss the suit or return the plaintforpresentation before proper Court as it has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding filed by a daughter against her father for maintenance, basing on the observations in P. Sreehari v. P. Sukunda2001 (1) ALT 739 = AIR 2001 A.P. 169 (D.B.). which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that since a reading of the Preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act and the sequence in which clauses (a) to (g) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act are arranged, coupled with the observation made in para-5 of P. Sriharicase (1 supra) reading,

(3.) The facts in P. Srihari case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner show that sisters filed a suit against their brothers and others, in a family Court claiming partition of the property left behind by their father. The Court held that such suit is not envisaged by Section 7 of the Act, because it reads-