Allowed

Gontela Srinivas, v. Smt. Gorentla Anitha

Telangana HC27 Oct 2014CRP/1393/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition setting aside the trial court's condition requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,000 to condone delay. The court directed a lower amount of Rs.20,000 as compensation and set aside the ex parte divorce decree upon that deposit.

What did the court decide?

The condition to deposit Rs.1,00,000 was set aside; the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.20,000 as permanent alimony pending disposal of the main petition.

Gontela Srinivas, Vs Smt. Gorentla Anitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1393 OF 2011

¶3

Dated:27-10-2014

¶4

Between:
Gontela Srinivas

¶5

... PETITIONER AND

¶6

Smt. Gorentla Anitha .. RESPONDENTS

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1393 OF 2011

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The respondent filed O.P No.382 of 2009 against her husband, the petitioner herein for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. The O.P was allowed ex parte on 23-04-2010. On coming to know that, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, with a prayer to set aside the

¶11

ex parte decree. Since there was a delay of 109 days in filing the application, the petitioner filed I.A No. 438 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court allowed the I.A through order dated 17-01-2011 on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said condition.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶13

It is true that the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is silent about the reasons for the delay. However, since the result in the O.P is going to have serious repercussions, the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity. When the ex parte decree is set aside, the question of awarding of permanent alimony or depositing any amount

¶14

thereunder does not arise. This Court is of the view that the inconvenience caused to the respondent can be compensated by awarding costs of Rs.20,000/- to her, which, in a way can be treated as the pendentilite maintenance.

¶15

Hence, the C.R.P is allowed setting aside the condition imposed by the Court for depositing of Rs.1,00,000/-. In its place, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent within four weeks from today. On such deposit, not only the delay shall stand condoned but also the ex parte order shall stand set aside.

¶16

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶18

27-10-2014 ks

Gontela Srinivas, v. Smt. Gorentla Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gontela Srinivas, v. Smt. Gorentla Anitha

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. Lalitha Vs M/s. Margdarsi Chit Fund Ltd.

V.Sreedhar Vs Smt.v.Sreedevi

Amirbhai Jamalbhai Vs a.Srivachalam

M.Yousufuddin Khan Vs Mrs. Naseem Begum

Mohd. Mohammed Ur.Rahman , Mahmood Ur Rahman Vs M/s. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd.

M.A. Rahman and Sons, Vs Kushal Chand Sanghvi