HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A. No.822 OF 2009 DATED: 11-09-2009 BETWEEN: Geddam Jayanthi & another …Appellants AND Geddam Bhaskara Rao …Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY S.A. No.822 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry passed in A.S.No.198 of 2007, dated 6.4.2009, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant setting aside the judgment and decree of II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) Rajahmundry in O.S.No.337 of 2004, dated 19.12.2006 with regard to the direction of deposit of Rs.1 lakh in the name of the 2nd plaintiff for his educational expenses while confirming the maintenance awarded thereunder. The appellants-plaintiffs being wife and son of respondent- defendant laid the above suit seeking maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month apart from Rs.1 lakh towards the medical and educational expenses to 2nd plaintiff. The learned trial judge after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and considering the fact that a sum of Rs.1200/- is already being paid to the plaintiffs as per the orders passed in M.C.No.1 of 1983, by judgment dated 19.12.2006 decreed the suit awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- which includes Rs.1200/- being paid as per the orders in the above M.C., with a further direction to the defendant to deposit Rs.1 lakh in the name of 2nd plaintiff to meet his educational expenses. Absolutely no reasons were assigned by the trial Court with regard to the direction for deposit of Rs.1 lakh in the name of 2nd plaintiff nor there was any finding with regard to the capacity of the defendant to deposit the said amount. On defendant filing the appeal, the lower appellate Court while confirming the decree of the trial Court to the extent of awarding maintenance, set aside the decree to the extent of directing the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the medical and educational expenses in the name of 2nd plaintiff, holding that the 2nd plaintiff, by the date of the suit, was only 6 years and that he is at the primary education stage and at that stage, the defendant cannot be directed to deposit Rs.1 lakh towards the educational expenses, but however, granted liberty to the 2nd plaintiff to file an application as and when such need arises, before the trial Court and to obtain appropriate direction in that regard. In view of the fact that the right of 2nd plaintiff has not been foreclosed forever and he was granted liberty to move the trial Court as and when need arises for his educational expenses, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 Tsr.