Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17500 (AP)

Seerapu Arun Kumar v. Seerapu Nagalakshmi

CRP/918/2022 · 2026-03-01

Harinath N

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010086012022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 918/2022 Between: 1. SEERAPU ARUN KUMAR,, S/O. LATE BUJJI RAJU, HINDU, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT Q.NO. 843, RAILWAY QUARTERS, BUS STOP BACK SIDE, THATICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. SEERAPU NAGALAKSHMI, W/O. ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. SEERAPU RAHUL RAJU, S/O. ARUN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 14 YEAR, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 36-4-15, GANGANNA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M.M.M. KRISHNA SANAPALA 2. G VENKATA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- Petitioner is agreed by the order passed in I.A.Nos.187 of 2021 and 188 of 2021 in F.C.O.P.No.188 of 2019, whereby the learned Judge Family Court- cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam had allowed the applications filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 456 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C and setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.11.2019 passed against the petitioner. F.C.O.P.188 of 2019 was allowed by the Family Court and agreed by the said order, the petitioner filed I.A.No.187 of 2021 seeking to condone the delay of 456 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. I.A.No.188 of 2021 was filed under Order IX Rule 13 r/w 151 of C.P.C seeking the relief of setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30.11.2019. The learned Judge allowed both the applications, subject to condition of depositing the half of the arrears of maintenance payable to the respondents on or before 15.11.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P is filed. 3. This Court while admitting the C.R.P. granted stay subject to the petitioner depositing 1/4th of the arrears of maintenance amount payable to the respondents within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order vide interim orders dated 04.05.2022. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order was complied by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in imposing a condition of deposit of half of the arrears of maintenance 3 amount payable to the respondents. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent, as on date, has attained majority and that the petitioner is unable to maintain himself on account of the other family commitments, which the petitioner would have to deal with. It is submitted that the respondents had sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each of the respondent towards the monthly maintenance. The learned Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.7,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Family Court has granted maintenance from the date of the order i.e. 30.11.2019 instead of granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application seeking maintenance. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not paid any maintenance after complying with the interim orders dated 04.05.2022. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the maintenance granted to the respondents is partly and is not sufficient for them to lead a decent life. It is also submitted that though the 2nd respondent is still a student and has no livelihood. The grievance expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has other commitments do not instill confidence and this Court is not inclined to entertain Civil Revision Petition. 4 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, making it clear to the petitioner to deposit the maintenance due payable as on date within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.02.03.2026 SR