A mere intimation to separate by an adult coparcener or a minor coparcener through next friend or institution of a suit immediately disrupts the status in joint family either from the date of the said intimation or the institution of the suit, as the case may be.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE four appeals, three regular and one miscellaneous, arise out of three suits and one original petition. While A. S. Nos. 1499 of 1985,1569 of 1985 and tr. A. S. No. 299 of 1986 arise out of civil proceedings in O. S. Nos. 123 of 1977,62 of 1976 and 3 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate judge, Guntur, C. M. A. No. 832 of 1984 arises out of divorce O. P. No. 160 of 1976. The above three suits and O. P. No. 80 of 1982, which was filed for the custody of minor boy, were tried together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 24th December, 1984 by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, guntur. While appeals have been preferred as against the judgments and decrees rendered in O. S. No. 123 of 1977, 62 of 1977 and 3 of 1981, no appeal has been preferred against the judgment rendered in O. P. No. 80 of 1982 relating to the custody of the minor child Kolluru Nagabhushanam who was allowed to remain with his mother. O. P. No. 160 of 1976 instituted by Kolluru Sambasiva rao for grant of divorce has been decreed, against which the above Civil miscellaneous Appeal No. 832 of 1984 was filed by the wife. O. S. No. 123 of 1977 relates to the claim of partition and separate possession filed by the minor son, kolluru Nagabhushanam, through his mother and next friend Kolluru Pramila rani against his father Kolluru Sambasiva Rao, as also some other defendants. The relief prayed for in O. S. No. 62 of 1976 was for maintenance for the wife, kolluru Pramila Devi and her minor son Kolluru Nagabhushanam against kolluru Sambasiva Rao. Earlier to the civil proceedings, Kolluru Pramila Rani, the wife, was granted maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal procedure and to annul the same, her husband has filed O. S. No. 3 of 1981. Due to multiplicity of proceedings and change in order of parries, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O. S. No. 123 of 1977. Kolluru Pramila Rani, wife - 1st plaintiff kolluru Nagabhushanam, son - 2nd plaintiff kolluru Sambasiva Rao, husband - Defendant

( 2 ) THE defendant is a much married man. Firstly, he had married Lalita kumari during the year 1966 and an year later, mere was strain in their relationship which culminated into several legal proceedings. Because of the said friction, his first wife, Lalita Kumari, was staying apart and the defendant had instituted legal proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights against lalita Kumari and the latter had filed a counter case for divorce. While the case of the defendant was that Lalita Kumari without any valid reason or cause deserted him, the complaint of the first wife was to the contra. Her case was that the defendant had not only misappropriated her monies including the dowry amount, but was indulging in extra-marital activities. She has specifically pleaded that the defendant was having extra-marital relationship with one ms. Avula Bharathi and the latter was also made party in the divorce petition as a co-respondent along with the defendant. While the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was not granted to the defendant against his first wife, the divorce O. P. filed by the first wife was allowed resulting in termination of her marriage with the defendent.

( 3 ) ON 14-6-1975, the defendant married the first plaintiff and this marital bliss also did not long last. Trouble ensued between the couple even within an year of their marriage. The second plaintiff was born to them during the month of March, 1975. The defendant had initiated criminal proceedings against the first plaintiff, her sister and mother and there was counter criminal proceedings too instituted by the latter against the defendant. There were also other civil cases instituted. After lot of unhappy incidents, the first plaintiff along with the second plaintiff had to go out of the house of defendant finally on 27-10-1975.

( 4 ) THE first plaintiff had instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for main

Click Here to Read the rest of this document