SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(AP) 249

B.PRAKASH RAO
C. Yemuna – Appellant
Versus
P. Manohara – Respondent


B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants, who are the Respondents 3 and 4 in the lower appellate Court having been impleaded therein, seek to assail the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 7 of 1986 dated 24-12-1991 on the file of the District Judge at Nalgonda, in the appeal filed at the instance of the defendant (who is, surprisingly, not made a party in this appeal), as against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 8 of 1984 dated 6-2-1986 on the file of the subordinate Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda district.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri T. S. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and sri N. Venkat Rayudu, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

( 3 ) INITIALLY, the suit has been filed by the respondent herein as against her husband-defendant along with their daughter, as Plaintiff No. 2, claiming for maintenance at Rs. 350. 00 per month and the arrears at Rs. 12,600. 00 and sought for creation of charge over the properties mentioned in plaint-A Schedule. The case of both the plaintiffs was that the defendant having married the Plaintiff No. l, lead a happy marital life for quite some time and out of the said wedlock, a son and minor daughter-the Plaintiff No. 2 having be















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top