Allowed

Smt. Bhagavathula Satya Nirmala, v. Bhagavathula Venkata Viswanadham

Telangana HC13 Jun 2014CMA/1546/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two appeals challenging a divorce decree and a maintenance award. The court set aside the lower court judgments because the appellant filed a memo stating the parties had reconciled, are living together, and have produced a new child. Miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments and decrees dated 17.04.2002 and 17.09.2005 were set aside.

Smt. Bhagavathula Satya Nirmala, Vs Bhagavathula… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

C.M.A.No.1546 OF 2002 AND F.C.A.No.177 OF 2005

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

C.M.A.No.1546 of 2002, under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 17.04.2002, rendered in O.P.No.303 of 1999 by the Family Court, Vijayawada, by which, the petition, under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the respondent – husband seeking divorce, was allowed by dissolving the marriage performed between the appellant – wife and the respondent – husband.

¶5

F.C.A.No.177 of 2005, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 17.09.2005, passed in O.S.No.2 of 2003 by the Family Court – cum – IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Vijayawada, by which, maintenance was awarded to the respondents at Rs.2,000/- each per month and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/was awarded towards marriage expenses of respondent No.2.

¶6

During pendency of these appeals, the appellant in

¶7

C.M.A.No.1546 of 2002 has filed a memo along with an affidavit stating that during pendency of these appeals, the issue was settled between herself and the respondent – husband and they are living together. It is also stated that they have also performed the marriage of their elder daughter by name Seeta Gayatri and during their cohabitation, they were also blessed with another child.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant in C.M.A.No.1546 of 2002 that in view of the subsequent changes, the impugned judgments are ought to be set aside.

¶9

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant in C.M.A.No.1546 of 2002 and in view of the memo along with an affidavit filed by the appellant therein, both the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 17.04.2002 and 17.09.2005, rendered in O.P.No.303 of 1999 and O.S.No.2 of 2003 respectively, by the Family Court, Vijayawada.

¶10

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.

¶11

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶12

JUSTICE A.SHANKAR

¶13

NARAYANA

¶14

13^th June, 2014 MD

Smt. Bhagavathula Satya Nirmala, v. Bhagavathula Venkata Viswanadham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagavathula Satya Nirmala, v. Bhagavathula Venkata Viswanadham

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. Shanker Vs Smt Tara Bai , Sujata

P.Samuel Vs Smt. P.Padma , K.Padma

P.Naga Rathana Rao Vs P.Hema Bindu

E.Lakshmaiah Vs the R.D.O.Cum L.a.O.Kurnool

Land Acquisition Officer,Spl Dy Collector, L.A. Unit, Vs Bharathamma

R.Do.-L.a.O. Kurnool Vs E.Lakshmaiah