The burden of proof lies on the father or mother to show that they are discharged from their liability to pay maintenance to the unmarried daughter, as per S.20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed in A.S. No. 102 of 2016 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, confirming the decree and judgment dated 29.03.2016 passed in O.S No. 169 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 169 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali.

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali in A.S. No. 102 of 2016.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st plaintiff married the defendant on 27.04.1990. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with daughter who is the 2nd plaintiff/2nd respondent herein. The defendant’s mother used to harass the 1st plaintiff by demanding to bring additional dowry. The defendant also used to harass her at the instance of his mother. The defendant and his mother got abortion to 1st plaintiff in the month of November 1990 and they driven out the 1st plaintiff for want of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-and thereafter the father of the 1st plaintiff deposited the same in her name. On the intervention of the sister of the defendant, the 1st plaintiff joined the defendant. Again the defendant and his mother started harassing her and beat and driven out for not brining the fixed deposit form stands in the name of the defendant. Thereafter the defendant filed O.P No. 68 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chirala for divorce and the 1st plaintiff also filed a petition in OP No. 72 of 1994 for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, both are living happily for 3 years. After giving birth to the 2nd plaintiff, the defendant developed illicit intimacy with one Anantha Lakshmi and started harassing the 1st plaintiff. Whenever she questioned about the intimacy the defendant used to harass and beat her and necked out her from his house. As they have no source of income to maintain themselves, she filed OS No. 169 of 2014 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (for short “the trial Court”) for grant of maintenance. The same was decreed with costs vide judgment, dated 29.03.2016, and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-each to the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 per month from the date of filing of petition and also by creating charge over items 1 to 2 plaint schedule properties for future maintenance.

5. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. He further contended that the 1st plaintiff has no interest to lead marital life with the defendant. She did not cooperate with the defendant for leading martial life and she voluntarily left the house in year 1991. Thereafter, the defendant sent mediators but the 1st plaintiff refused to live with the defendant. Therefore, the defendant filed a petition for grant of divorce. The father of the defendant is providing money to the plaintiff for maintenance and education of 2nd plaintiff. He is ready to give Ac 1.50 cents of wet land worth about Rs.30,00,000/-. The defendant has already deposited Rs.7,000/-in the name of 2nd plaintiff. The father of the defendant gave Rs.2,00,000/-to the 2nd plaintiff and the same was withdrawn. He further contended that the plaintiffs have capacity to maintain themselves. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the amounts paid to the plaintiffs as alleged by the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintenance, if so, to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, DW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to conclusion that the plaintif