P SIMHADRI RAJU Vs. P ANNAPURNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as they raise common question of law.

(2.) The only question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in these two appeals is whether the court below is justified in law in . holding that there shall be a charge on the plaint A schedule properties for the mantenance granted to the plaintiffs. The appellants challenge is restricted only against the direction creating charge on the plaint A schedule properties to recover the maintenance granted to the respondents herein and they do not challenge the findings facts recorded by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) Both the courts below have categorically found that the marriage ceremony between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant is established and that it must have taken place some time after the Hindu Marriage Act came into force in the year 1956 and, therefore, her marriage is not a valid marriage. However, the court below held that the 1st plaintiff was entitled to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 against the 1st defendant, and granted a sum of Rs. 200/- per annum towards separate residence for the plaintiffs. These findings have not been challenged by the appellents in these appeals.