Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HARINATH.N, J
SRI. KORRAPATI SESHU – Appellant
Versus
KORRAPATI PRASANTHI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of the order granting maintenance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the adequacy of the maintenance order. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observation of the necessity for maintenance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. confirmation of the original order. (Para 7) |
ORDER:
The petitioner challenges the order dated 22.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2024 in FCOP (MC) No.1839 of 2023 passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Court Judge, Vijayawada.
2. The 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is their daughter (aged about 4 years), and the 3rd respondent is their son (aged about 1 year). The respondents filed Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2024 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Judge, after considering the matter, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondents from the date of the petition until the disposal of the main FCOP (MC) No.1839 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is devoid of detailed reasoning and fails to consider the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another , [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. It is further sub
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
