Dismissed

Samayam Nageswara Rao v. Nanday Bharathi Devi

Telangana HC29 Nov 2012CRP/2849/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Krishna Mohan Reddy dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an order rejecting the husband's application to recall his wife for further cross-examination. The court found the application was filed to harass the wife without specific mention of new aspects, requiring no interference.

What did the court decide?

No reasons to interfere; miscellaneous petitions pending disposed of.

Samayam Nageswara Rao Vs Nanday Bharathi Devi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2849 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 08.06.2012, in I.A.No.492 of 2011 in O.P.No.831 of 2008 on the file of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶4

The petitioner herein, who is the husband, is the respondent and the respondent herein, who is the wife, is the petitioner in O.P.No.831 of 2008. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.

¶5

The petitioner filed the O.P. for divorce against the respondent. Recording of evidence was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. The petitioner was examined as PW.1. The respondent filed I.A.No.492 of 2011 seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further crossexamination. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is the plea of the respondent that with regard to some important aspects of their marriage, PW.1 was not cross examined and therefore, he sought to recall her for further cross examination.

¶6

On the other hand, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent filed the said I.A. only to harass her so that she would withdraw the main case. Further, since the year 2008, the respondent has been dragging the matter on one pretext or other with a malafide intention. According to her, to avoid the cross-examination of PW.2, the I.A. was filed and that there are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶7

The Court below, after taking into consideration the fact that the respondent’s counsel cross-examined PW.1 on two spells i.e., on 11.03.2011 and 11.04.2011 touching all aspects in accordance with the counter and also observing that if the respondent had stated any new aspects to his counsel, those aspects would not have any bearing on the case because as settled by law the parties would not be allowed to let in any evidence beyond their pleadings and that because no specific reason which could be considered by the Court was shown in the affidavit, dismissed the I.A by the impugned

¶8

order. So aggrieved by the order, the respondent has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶10

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent – husband except taking a vague plea that PW.1 was not cross-examined on certain important aspects with regard to their marriage has not specifically mentioned what are the new aspects on which he wants to further cross examine PW.1. It appears that he filed I.A.No.492 of 2011 only to drag on the matter and to harass the petitioner – wife. Hence, I do not find any reason in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court.

¶11

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand

¶12

closed.

¶13

________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶14

Date: 29.11.2012 ES

Samayam Nageswara Rao v. Nanday Bharathi Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samayam Nageswara Rao v. Nanday Bharathi Devi

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

The Institutte of Charted Financial Analyst of India Vs Cfa Institute ( formerly Known as Association

Sri Tumati Rajan Babu, Vs Sri Bandaru Vithal Rao

Sri Sri Sri Radhakanthaswamy Temple Vs Maddu Ramamurthy

Chintapalati Ramakrishna Raju (died Vs Chintalapati Viswanadha Raju

Kanchi Muralidhar, Vs K.Usha Rani

Smt.Lakshmamma, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation