Dismissed

Kurapati Sarala , Saroja v. Kurapati Madhusudhan

Telangana HC25 Oct 2013FCA/347/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal against a Family Court order granting restitution of conjugal rights. The court held that a valid marriage subsisting justified the husband's insistence on marital cohabitation, noting the wife failed to substantiate her pleas despite alleged misunderstandings.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions disposed of.

Kurapati Sarala , Saroja Vs Kurapati Madhusudhan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

¶3

F.C.A.No.347 of 2013

¶4

ORDER : (Per LNR,,J)

¶5

The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1989, and they were also blessed with a son and daughter, who are fairly grown up now. The respondent filed O.P.No.118 of 2010 in the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court, Warangal, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. He pleaded that though the marriage between them is subsisting and he is ready to live with the appellant, he is not extended the cooperation, and that the marital life between them has suffered serious dent.

¶6

The appellant filed counter, opposing the O.P. She pleaded that unable to bear the harassment caused by the respondent, she filed D.V.C.No.7 of 2010, and the present O.P. was filed, only as a counter blast. She also pleaded that the respondent developed intimacy with another woman, and in that view of the matter, she cannot be expected to lead the marital life with him. Other subsidiary grounds were also raised.

¶7

The trial Court allowed the O.P. through order, dated 06.09.2013. Hence, this appeal.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶9

the respondent.

¶10

It may be true that there are some misunderstandings between the appellant and her husband, the respondent. The fact, however, remains that a legally valid marriage is subsisting between them, and as long as the marriage subsists, the respondent has every right to insist on the appellant to lead the marital life with him. The mere existence of differences or lack of harmony may not be a justification for total snapping of the matrimonial relations.

¶11

Though the appellant pleaded certain grounds, which if proved, may hold good for dissolution of the marriage, she did not substantiates the same before the trial Court. The learned Judge, Family Court, has taken into account every fact pleaded

¶12

by the respondent on one hand, and the respondent on the other hand, and arrived at a conclusion that there was no basis for the appellant to withdraw from the society of the respondent. We do not find any legal or factual error in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶13

The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶15

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶16

______________________

¶17

M.S.K. JAISWAL, J. 25^th October, 2013 cbs

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶19

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

¶20

F.C.A.No.347 of 2013

¶21

25^th October, 2013

¶22

cbs

Kurapati Sarala , Saroja v. Kurapati Madhusudhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurapati Sarala , Saroja v. Kurapati Madhusudhan

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

D.Swarnalatha Vs Lao(Sub Collector)Tenali

Mummaneni Lakshmeeswari Vs R.D.O. (Lao) Gudiwada

Smt. Tummala Palli Annapurnamma Vs The La Officer

Machineni Venakteswara Rao , Subah Rao , Venkat Rao Vs Machineni Swapna

Mechineni Swapna Vs Mechineni Venkateshwar Rao ,Suhas Rao , Venkat Rao

S.Saraswathi Vs S.Srinivas Reddy