K VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS GUDIVADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises in this revision is. Whether minor children by the first wife after being divorced by her husband and after his re-marrying a second wife would be within the family unit of the divorced husband for the purpose of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 ?

(2.) This point chiefly turns upon the construction of the provisions enacted in section 3(f) (ii) of the Land Ceiling Act.

(3.) Before noticing the statutory provisions, the facts of the case may briefly be stated. The declarant got married one Kamala Kumari as his first wife and had two sons by her, the major son being Ramgopal and the minor one being Gangadhar Rao, The first wife was divorced by the petitioner in the year 1968. There was a partition of the properties on 12.1.1972. between the declarant and his sons. He got remarried and through the second wife he has minor children. Under Ex.P-1 which is an order granting divorce, the custody of the children of the first wife was given to the declarant and he undertook to maintain the children. It is in this set of circumstances the declarations were filed under the Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner filed a declaration wherein he showed his second wife and the children born to her as members of the family unit and not the minor sons born by the second wife, wheteas the divorced wife filed her declaration along with her minor son contending that those two members would constitute members of the family unit. Apart from this in so far as the benefit under Section 4.A of the Act was concerned, the declarant-husband claimed that the major son of the first wife was entitled to have a separate holding, and should there be any deficit in the major son's holding, the same will have to be made good in the holding of the father who is the declarant husband. This claim was, however- rejected by the Tribunals below on the ground that though the major son's rights under section 4- A are justified, the claim with regard to the inc'usiori of the minor in the family unit of the first wife is baseless and untenable and therefore the minor son by the first wife was sought to be included in the family unit of the husband-declarant.