APHC010245002010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3587] WEDNESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 206/2010 Between: 1. GODA RAJA RANSON, VISAKHAPATNAM, S/O G.Y. RATNAM R/O D.NO. 62-2-53, SRIRAM NAGAR, MALKAPURAM POST VISAKHAPATNAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT GODA HILDA PREMALATHA VISAKHAPATNAM 2 OTHERS, D/O LATE MUNNANGI ALFRED JOSEPH HOUSEWIFE R/O C/O. SMT. M. BHANUMATHI JOSEPH (APPELLANT'S MOTHER) SRI DEVI APARTMENTS, N.A.D. KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. M/S MARGADARSI FINANCIERS REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, 5-10-195, FATEH MAIDAN ROAD, HYDERABAD- 500 004 3. M/S MARGADARSI FINANCIERS REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MANGALAGIRI COMPLEX, GAJUWAKA VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under section________ against orders 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2010(FCAMP 511 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Decree and Order made in OP No. 232 of 2007 dt.11-8-2010 passed by the Judge Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Family Court Appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K R SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present Family Court Appeal has been preferred challenging the order and decree dated 11.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No.232/2007 wherein said O.P is filed by the respondent under Section 7(1)(c) of Family Courts Act against her husband and financiers, Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam for recovery of Rs.2,25,000/- from each fixed deposit bearing No.AAB4459, AAB4460 for a total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- lying in fixed deposit under respondents 2 and 3 therein and for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- from 1st respondent towards interest in respect of fixed deposits. 2. After evidence, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the fact that respondent no.1 kept the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- each in two deposits in the name of PW1 and RW1. In the said circumstances, respondent no.1 has to keep the amount in joint with both PW1 and RW1. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled half of the share in the said fixed deposits. Though the counsel for the appellant has contended that there is no material evidence to prove that PW1 has contributed two lakhs of rupees as lanchanams, when she failed to produce any evidence, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application by granting half of the share to the petitioner. 3. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and also perusal of the observations made by the Court below and also evidence of PW1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the observations and the relief granted infavour of the respondents herein as the Court has rightly granted half of the share of the petitioner by directing the respondents 2 to 3 to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner along with interest. 4 4. In view of the same, appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH ___________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 24.6.2026 RD 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 206 of 2010 24.6.2026 RD