Allowed

Suman Bhargava (Bhargava Ramayanam Muni) v. Mrs. Divya Devender

Telangana HC25 Jun 2013FCA/351/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Family Court Appeal set aside a trial court's ex parte decree granting divorce and permanent alimony. The High Court held the trial court failed to examine grounds or evidence of capacity. The OP is remanded for afresh adjudication with opportunity to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; decree set aside; OP remanded to trial court for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both parties.

Suman Bhargava (Bhargava Ramayanam Muni) Vs Mrs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.351 OF 2012

¶3

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

¶4

The respondent in O.P.No.985 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, filed this appeal through his father as Special Power of Attorney.

¶5

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 05.11.2009. Both of them lived in U.S.A for sometime. However, the respondent came back to India. She filed the said O.P. on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce against the appellant. The trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 11.05.2012 granting divorce and requiring the appellant to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as permanent alimony. The same is challenged in this appeal.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit, that soon after receiving the information that the O.P. was filed by the respondent, the appellant authorized his father to enter appearance on his behalf and to contest the OP. He submits that the copy of the General Power of Attorney and relevant documents were served upon the counsel for the respondent herein on 19.01.2012 and the Court did not receive the Vakalat filed on his behalf by raising certain procedural aspects. He submits that on 19.01.2012 itself, the appellant was set ex parte and thereafter the trial Court has passed the ex parte decree by advancing the O.P.

¶7

Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant did not turn up even after receiving the notice and though the trial Court has given ample opportunity to him. He submits that the appellant was set ex parte on 19.01.2012 and

¶8

after the matter was adjourned on three occasions, the ex parte decree was passed. He further submits that the respondent has since been married to another person.

¶9

The respondent pleaded the ground of cruelty, for seeking divorce against the appellant. The record discloses that the proof of service of notice on the appellant was filed by the respondent on 19.01.2012 and on the same day, the trial Court set the appellant ex parte. Obviously because the appellant authorized his father to enter appearance, some procedural objections were raised and the attempt made by his father to represent the appellant did not fructify. Having set the appellant herein ex parte on 19.01.2012, the trial Court adjourned the matter to 13.02.2012. However, on 8.02.2012, the trial Court advanced the matter to that day and on the next date, it passed an order granting divorce as well as awarding permanent alimony.

¶10

Though the appellant was set ex parte, the trial Court was under obligation to satisfy itself, about the grounds pleaded by the respondent. Granting of divorce is not a matter of course. Added to that, the respondent did not place any evidence before the trial Court about the financial capacity of the appellant in the context of granting permanent alimony. The decree passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law, or on facts. The OP needs to be decided on merits.

¶11

We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in O.P. The O.P. shall be decided by the trial Court afresh, after giving opportunity to both parties.

¶12

The plea that the respondent was married to another person, during pending of the appeal, shall be taken into account by the trial Court, while deciding the O.P.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in the appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶14

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

____________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

S.V. BHATT, J

Dated:25.06.2013

eha/kh

171

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶22

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.351 of 2012

¶23

25th June, 2013

¶24

eha/kh

Suman Bhargava (Bhargava Ramayanam Muni) v. Mrs. Divya Devender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Bhargava (Bhargava Ramayanam Muni) v. Mrs. Divya Devender

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

B. Vijaya Kumar Vs D.gopala Krishna Reddy

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital Vs Sri Pranav Ravi

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D Vs Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

Pulakandla Balaiah, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Smt Akula Deevi Padmaja Vs Akula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

M/s. Sri Lalithamba Enterprieses Vs Director of State Ports