Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
Rudi Appa Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Rudi Mallamma - Respondent
Second Appeal No: 577/2022
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr Majji Suri Babu
For the Respondent: M Solomon Raju
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned judgment and address relevant legal points before confirming lower court orders.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 1 - Jurisdiction of appellate authority - The second appeal challenges the order confirming maintenance of 30% of gross salary to the petitioner, with the respondent contesting the relationship and jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The court found the first appellate authority's order unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and failure to address key issues. (Paras 5, 11, 14, 15)
(B) Maintenance - The court emphasized the need for the first appellate authority to frame relevant points for determination regarding the alleged marriage and the sustainability of the maintenance order. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims to be the second wife of the respondent, seeking maintenance based on an agreement, while the respondent denies the relationship and claims the documents are fabricated.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate authority's order was set aside for lack of reasoning and failure to address jurisdictional issues.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the alleged marriage and the appropriateness of the maintenance order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the first appellate authority must provide a reasoned judgment and address the relevant legal points before confirming lower court orders.
Result: Second appeal allowed; matter remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims marriage and maintenance (Para 3) |
| 2. respondent denies relationship (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. preliminary objection on maintainability (Para 9) |
| 4. jurisdictional objections must be timely (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. lack of reasoning in appellate order (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. points for determination set (Para 15) |
| 7. second appeal allowed and remanded (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
The second appeal is filed against the order dated 28-10-2022 in A.A.S. No.01/2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Additional Agent to Government cum Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Paderu of Alluri Sitharama Raju District, in confirming the order dated 30-4-2022 in A.O.S.No.20/2022 passed by the Sub Collector cum Agency Subordinate Judge, Paderu.
2. Both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in A.O.S.No.20/2022 before the Sub Collector cum Agency Subordinate Judge, Paderu.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
It is pleaded that while the petitioner was studying 10th Class, the respondent by name Rudi Apparao, who was working as Horticulture Officer, Coffee Board, ITDA, Paderu, got married her on 15-6-1994 in the presence of village elders and both of them have executed an agreement dated 18-6-1994. The petitioner further pleaded that in pursuance of the said agreement, the respondent has to look after all her responsibilities as husband. She further pleaded that after marrying the respondent, she was completely dependant on him for her livelihood and at present, he is not providing minimum necessities and livelihood to live in the society to maintain and she prayed to do justice financially by attaching 30 per cent gross salary of the respondent. Hence, the petition.
4. The case of the respondent, in brief, is as follows:
It is pleaded that there is no relation in between the respondent and the petitioner as husband and his 2nd wife as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner is no way related to the respondent in any manner and the respondent is a married person, having three daughters through his wife viz., Rudi Appalamma and leading family life with them only. He further pleaded that whatever documents filed by the petitioner are all created and fabricated and the respondent is a respectable person in the society and the petitioner filed a complaint petition with false and untenable allegations with an evil intention to gain benefits unlawfully and that he is no way connected to the petitioner and she is not entitled to any relief and he prayed to dismiss the complaint petition filed by the petitioner.
5. On hearing both sides‟ counsel, the Sub Collector cum Agency Sub Judge, Paderu, passed the following order:
“Maintenance charges of 30% of gross salary of the defendant to be given to the petitioner. The Assistant Director (Coffee), ITDA, Paderu is hereby directed to attach the bank details of the petitioner and to ensure that the monthly maintenance charge is deposited to petitioner through bank.”
6. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent filed a first appeal vide A.A.S.No.01/2022 before the Additional District Magistrate and Additional Agent to Government cum Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, under Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. On hearing both sides, the first appellate Authority passed the following order:
“The respondent side advocate submitted the following original documents, which were clear-cut evidences as the respondent is wife of the appellant:
(a) Marriage Certificate duly attested by village elders
(b) Letters which were written by the appellant to the respondent.
Hence, the first appellate Court opined that there are no sufficient grounds to set aside the lower Court order.”
8. Heard Dr. Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/ respondent and Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for respondent herein has ta
