Allowed

R.Radha v. P.Bhanu Prakash Reddy

Telangana HC25 Apr 2013FCA/182/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a divorce petition. The trial court had dismissed the petition because the wife failed to pay the fee (batta) for a Non-Bailable Warrant issued to the absent husband. The appellate court held this approach was unjust and contrary to family court principles, remanding the matter for proper adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the Family Court for disposal on merits in accordance with family law principles.

R.Radha Vs P.Bhanu Prakash Reddy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

FCA.No.182 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The appellant is the wife of the respondent. The marriage between them took place as recently as on 19.06.2010. Alleging that the respondent deserted her and subjected her to cruelty, the appellant filed F.C.O.P.No.123 of 2012 before the Family Court, Kadapa, against the respondent, for divorce. The O.P was dismissed on 05.03.2013 on the sole ground that Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued to the respondent on 12.02.2013 and though the appellant was informed to pay batta for enforcement of NBW, she did not come forward and, on the other hand, she pleaded that the batta need not be paid.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

The appeal was listed before us on 16.04.2013. On finding that the nature of disposal given to the O.P was somewhat extraordinary, we called for the record and the record has been placed before us.

¶7

The respondent did not appear before the trial Court and even we do not feel it necessary to issue notice, having regard to the nature of the disposal being given to the appeal.

¶8

The Family Courts are constituted with an objective of resolving the family related disputes by adopting a non-technical and party friendly approach. The effort of the Court is first to secure the presence of the parties and then to undertake reconciliation. If the reconciliation fails, the matter is required to be dealt with on merits.

¶9

In the instant case, the trial Court issued notice to the parties on 01.10.2012, indicating the next date of hearing as 12.02.2013. Notice was served upon the respondent, both through Court and through Registered Post. If the respondent did not appear on that date, it was open to the Court either to adjourn the matter or to proceed with the matter as provided under law. However, a peculiar approach was adopted. The trial Court issued NBW to the respondent.

¶10

The peculiarity does not end there. Since the NBW was issued to the respondent, the appellant was required to pay batta. A representation was made on behalf of the appellant that neither NBW of the respondent was called for nor the appellant was under obligation to pay the batta. On the ground that the batta was not paid and inferring collusion between the parties, the trial Court dismissed the O.P.

¶11

We do not at all approve the manner in which the trial Court dealt with the O.P. Issuance of NBW itself was not called for. The respondent is not a criminal and he has every right to appear or desist from appearing before the Court. Law provides the consequences in the event of the respondent failing to appear. Further, even if the appellant fails to pay the batta, the trial Court was not at all justified in dismissing the O.P on that ground. The whole approach is untenable and contrary to the very spirit of the Constitution of the Family Courts. In case the trial Court was of the view that the respondent remained absent only to enable the appellant to get a decree, it ought to have adjourned the matter by six months or taken other steps.

¶12

We, accordingly, allow the appeal and remand the matter to the

¶13

trial Court.

¶14

The learned Presiding Officer is put on notice that if such instances occur, serious note of the matter will be taken and it may even lead to initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

¶15

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶17

________________ S.V.BHATT,J

¶18

25.04.2013 Note: L.R.copy B/o v v

R.Radha v. P.Bhanu Prakash Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Radha v. P.Bhanu Prakash Reddy

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

Edara Ravi Kumar Vs Nallam Sridevi

Y.Venkateswara Rao Vs Smt. Y. Chetana [Jampala Chetana]

Chiluka Rajender Reddy , Tagore Reddy Vs Chiluka Gurva Reddy

Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Suleman , Goremiya

Ch.Seshagiri Vs Ch.Srinivasulu

Rudrapati Yerraiah Naidu Vs G.Naga Sreelakshmi