Allowed

Smt. v.L.Padmavathi v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC12 Mar 2012CRLRC/2341/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench allowed an appeal against a divorce decree and confirmed a remand order in a maintenance case. The court found the trial court erred in granting divorce and dismissing maintenance without discussing the voluminous evidence adduced by parties, directing fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Divorce decree set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits; interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month directed.

Smt. v.L.Padmavathi Vs The State of A.P. — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO

¶2

F.C.A.No.9 of 2011 and Crl.R.C.M.P.(SR) No.11101 of 2011 in CRL.R.C.No.2341 of 2010

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S.Appa Rao)

¶4

Both these appeal and the revision case are filed against the orders dated 15.11.2010 passed in O.P.No.68 of 2008 and M.C.No.11 of 2008, respectively, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶5

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in O.P.No.68 of 2008.

¶6

3. The appellant-husband in F.C.A.No.9 of 2011 is the first respondent in O.P.No.68 of 2008. The 1^st respondent-wife in F.C.A.No.9 of 2011 is the petitioner in the said O.P., filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree of divorce.

¶7

4. According to the petitioner-wife, the conduct of the first respondent-husband amounts to mental cruelty as he married another woman on 20.03.2003. During the course of trial, on behalf of the wife, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A32 were marked. On behalf of the husband, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, but no document was marked. After due enquiry, the trial Court

¶8

granted divorce in favour of the petitioner-wife against the first respondent-husband. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent-husband filed the present FCA.

¶9

5. Further, the petitioner-wife filed M.C.No.11 of 2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and the same was dismissed on 15.11.2010 on the ground that she is an earning member. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present Crl.R.C.No.2341 of 2010 before this Court. This Court having dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, by order dated 21.02.2011, remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the first respondenthusband filed Crl.R.C.M.P.(SR).No.11101 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.No.2341 of 2010 seeking to recall the order dated 21.02.2011, mainly on the ground that both the maintenance case and the divorce OP were tried jointly by the trial Court by recording common evidence, and therefore, both the Crl.R.C. filed against the order of maintenance and the FCA filed against the decree of divorce granted in the O.P. can be disposed of together. By order dated 04.07.2011, the learned single Judge of this Court, while passing orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.(SR) No.11101 of 2011, held that the questions raised by the first respondent-husband should be authoritatively decided by a Division Bench of this Court where FCA is pending, directed the Registry to place the entire record before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. Thereupon, the said Crl.R.C.M.P.(SR) No.11101 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.No.2341 of 2010 is posted along with the FCA for fresh disposal.

¶10

6. Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent-husband as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife.

¶11

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the first respondent-husband argued that the trial Court without considering the evidence of respondents in the O.P., in right perspective, granted divorce. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 in the O.P.

¶12

8. A perusal of the impugned order in O.P.No.68 of 2008 would show that the trial Court without discussing the evidence of the witnesses examined on either side and without considering the documents-Exs.A1 to A32, passed the impugned order. Though there is voluminous evidence on behalf of the parties, the trial Court simply granted divorce without recording any finding about the conduct of either of the parties. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable on the threshold itself.

¶13

9. In the case of this nature, in particular, when the parties produced clinching evidence to substantiate their respective claims, the trial Court must go into the said evidence in detail and pass an appropriate order. The reasons recorded by the learned Judge in O.P.No.68 of 2008 are self-explanatory and the matter was disposed of cogently without going into the merits of the case.

¶14

10. In the order dated 21.02.2011, in Crl.R.C.No.2341 of 2010, the learned single Judge of this Court observed the conduct of the trial Court in passing the other order impugned in M.C.No.11 of

¶15

2008 as follows:

¶16

“Having considered the said submissions, this Court perused the impugned order scrupulously. This Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is totally contrary to the said evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner and is silent on this aspect. The trial Court did not discuss any of these aspects in disallowing the claim of maintenance. The only aspect which weighed with the trial Court in refusing to grant maintenance to the petitioner herein is that she studied B.A., B.C.A., M.A.(Sociology and she is a social worker and is capable of earning and maintaining herself. When once the private respondent’s claim is that there was no valid marriage between the second respondent and the petitioner, in my considered view, the trial Court ought to have gone into the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties in deciding the aspects as to whether there is a valid marriage or not between the second respondent and the petitioner herein; and as to whether the alleged second marriage of the second respondent with another woman as per Ex.A2 is true or not”.

¶17

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that though the trial Court granted divorce in favour of the petitioner-wife, non-discussion of oral and documentary evidence indicates that the trial Court has not yet considered the case of the petitioner-wife in right perspective.

¶18

12. In the aforesaid circumstances and as agreed by both the counsel on record, we thought it fit to set aside the impugned order passed in O.P.No.68 of 2008 dated 15.11.2010 and remand the matter to the trial Court for adjudication afresh on merits.

¶19

13. Accordingly, F.C.A.No.9 of 2011 is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 in O.P.No.68 of 2008. However, in the interest of justice and as agreed by both the counsel on record, we direct the first respondent-husband to pay interim

¶20

maintenance @ Rs.8,000/-per month to the petitioner-wife commencing from the month of March, 2012, during the pendency of both the matters.

¶21

14. In view of the orders passed in F.C.A.No.9 of 2011, the petition in Crl.R.C.M.P.(SR) No.11101 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.No.2341 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.2341 of 2010 is confirmed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Therefore, we direct the trial Court to dispose of M.C.No.11 of 2008 afresh after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶22

_________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶23

_______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J

¶24

Date:12.03.2011 sj

Smt. v.L.Padmavathi v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v.L.Padmavathi v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, Vs Boppanna Sathayanarayana

Smt.Boppana Varalakshmi, Vs Boppanna Sathayanarayana

Smt K. Vinodini Devi , Vinodi Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy

M. Sreenivasulu naidu Vs The La Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Rampa Simhagiri Vs Kovvuri Venkata Reddy

Laoandrdo Medak Vs E.Jangamma and 45 Others