LAWS(APH)-1968-10-4

YERRAKULA KOTAYYA Vs. YERRAKULA ANJAMMA

Decided On October 31, 1968
YERRAKULA KOTAYYA Appellant
V/S
YERRAKULA ANJAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN M. C. No. 74 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Munaif-Magistrate, Bapatla, Yerukala Kotiah was the sole respondent I shall refer to the parties hereafter in their denomination in the trial Court, Yeru. kula Anjatnrna as petitioner No. 1 and her daughter by respondent viz. , petitioner No. 2 (represented by petitioner No. 1 as guardian) prayed foe an order of maintenance under Section 488, Criminal P. C. against the respondent at the rate of Rs. 45/p. m. for petitioner No. 1 and Sa. 30/, per menaem for petitioner No. 2. The respondent did not deny the relationship but raised various contentions denying the right of the two petitioners foe maintenance and disputing the rate of maintenance. Both sides let in evidence.

(2.) THE petition was filed on 24-9-66. Even before the petition was filed, on 24-8-1986 the respondent had executed a registered settlement deed settling certain property on his minor son by petitioner No. 1. In that document he provided as follows; I have executed this settlement deed. I shall retain the schedule mentioned items 1, 2 and 3 property in my possession itself till my lifetime and I alone paying the list due to the Government and the taxes etc. , due to panchayati shall only enjoy the income thereof without having powers of gift, sale etc. You shall take possession of the schedule mentioned items 1, 2, and 3 property after my lifetime. . . . Even if during my lifetime you do not become a major and I die even when you were a minor my younger sister's husband. . . shall act as your guardian and immediately after you pass minority shall deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property and the income balances thereon to you. . . .

(3.) IN the course of the proceedings, the respondent deposed as D. W. 1 that he was not willing to abide by the agreement. The learned Magistrate, after considering the entire evidence, held that the petitioners 1 and 2 were entitled to maintenance and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- p. m. for petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 25/- p. m. for petitioner No. 2.