Partly allowed

Maganti Sarath v. Maganti Alias Vankina Sri Vidya

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2021CRP/901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allowed two civil revision petitions challenging the dismissal of interim applications for recall of a witness and document production in matrimonial proceedings. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial court to allow proper pleadings regarding facts like phone ownership alleged to prove adultery.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions were allowed; the appealed orders dismissing I.A.Nos.1090 and 1091 of 2019 were set aside and remanded to the trial court. No order as to costs.

Maganti Sarath Vs Maganti Alias Vankina Sri… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.901 & 931 of 2020

¶2

COMMON ORDER:-

¶3

The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017, for dissolution of marriage, and respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2018, for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions are before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.

¶4

In the course of the trial of H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2018, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.1090 of 2019 and I.A.No.1091 of 2019, for recalling himself as witness and for receiving certain documents with the leave of the Court. Both the applications were dismissed by an order dated 10.02.2020.

¶5

Since both these applications relate to the same issue and between the same parties, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶6

Heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The contention of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of these applications is that certain documents are required to be placed before the Court for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the petition. The details of the said documents as well as the requirement of producing

¶8

¶9

these documents appear to have been argued across the bar and the orders have been passed after hearing both sides.

¶10

The contentions raised by the counsel on both sides in this Court and a perusal of the orders under revision would show that the petitioner had alleged that the respondent was leading an adulterous life and to demonstrate the said contention, the petitioner, in the course of cross examination of the respondent, had confronted the respondent in relation to the phone calls said to have been made by her to certain persons. This suggestion and question of the petitioner was denied by the respondent and thereafter, the respondent went on to add that she never owned phone during that time. Apparently, to demonstrate that she was the owner of the phone, the petitioner sought to produce documents showing purchase of the phone by the respondent and the bills to show that the phone could have belonged only to her.

¶11

This contention was opposed by the respondent.

¶12

It appears that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a cursory affidavit and further details were gone into in the course of arguments before the trial Court and before this Court. In view of the fact that all the necessary statements which have come to be considered by the trial Court, subsequently were not placed before the trial Court by way of proper pleadings, it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 10.02.2020 in I.A.Nos.1090 and 1091 of 2019 and remand the said applications to the trial Court with leave

¶13

¶14

to both the parties to set out appropriate facts and pleadings for proper adjudication of the entire dispute by the Court. It would be open to the trial Court to take up the matter after the pleadings have been completed, and decision may be rendered after considering all the facts raised in the pleadings.

¶15

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and I.A.No.1090 of 2019 and I.A.No.1091 of 2019 are remanded. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶17

JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶18

Date : 16-12-2021 RJS

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.901 & 931 of 2020

¶22

16-12-2021

¶23

RJS

Maganti Sarath v. Maganti Alias Vankina Sri Vidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maganti Sarath v. Maganti Alias Vankina Sri Vidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yeddula Peddi Raju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Katikala Sysabu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

T Venkateswara Rao Vs Chulukoti Vijayalakshmi

Maganti Sarath Vs Maganti at Vankina Sri Vidya

Nimmagal Shahin, Vs T.M. Musibur Rahaman

J. Gopala Krishna Vs Kolli Kishore