Allowed

Maddi Vijaya Laxmi v. Maddi Ranga Dattatraya Reddy

Telangana HC11 Jun 2014FCA/103/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal set aside an order dismissing an application to condone delay in setting aside an ex parte divorce decree. The court allowed the application in the interest of justice due to alleged fraud and directed the Family Court to dispose of the main case within six months.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal of the application to condone delay is set aside; the application to condone delay is allowed; the main petition is directed to be disposed of within six months.

Maddi Vijaya Laxmi Vs Maddi Ranga Dattatraya Reddy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

F.C.A.No.103 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 aggrieved by order dated 16.03.2007 passed in I.A.No.472 of 2006 in O.P.No.522 of 2005 by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

The appellant and respondent are wife and husband. The respondent, who was aged about 60 years, filed O.P.No.522 of 2005 against the respondent, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage with the appellant. There is an ex parte decree in favour of the respondent in the said O.P. As there was delay of 183 days in filing application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, she filed I.A.No.472 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the said delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., she stated that her husband obtained ex parte decree of divorce by playing fraud and she specifically pleaded that he fabricated the notice, reply notice etc., and she, being illiterate, never suspected the conduct of her husband. Further, the appellant, pleading that she has got strong case to contest the matter on merits, prayed for condoning the delay of 183 days in filing application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is also stated that she has come to know about the ex parte decree only

¶6

on 22.07.2006 when she was summoned by the Station House Officer, Kancharapalem P.S. In spite of detailed explanation in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the Court below dismissed the I.A., by recording that there are no grounds to condone the delay.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order as well as the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., seeking to condone the delay.

¶8

At the time of filing the O.P., before the Family Court, the respondent was aged 60 years and the appellant was aged 55 years. It is to be noticed that the appellant herein, in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., seeking to condone the delay in filing application to set aside the ex parte decree, has categorically stated that her husband fabricated the notice, reply notice etc., forged her signatures and obtained decree in a fraudulent manner. There appears no reason to disbelieve the same. In any event, as the decree obtained by the respondent is an ex parte decree for divorce and having regard to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., seeking to condone the delay in filing application to set aside the ex parte decree, we are of the view that it is a fit case to give an opportunity to the appellant herein, to contest the matter before the Court below, by condoning the delay. The Court below has committed error by not considering the I.A., filed by the appellant in proper perspective and no reasons are

¶9

recorded for rejecting the claim of the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, dated 16.03.2007 passed in I.A.No.472 of 2006 in O.P.No.522 of 2005, is set aside. Consequently I.A.No.472 of 2006 stands allowed. Further, there shall be a direction to the Court below to dispose of O.P.No.522 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶10

The F.C.A., is allowed to the extent indicated above. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this F.C.A., stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

_____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶12

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶13

11 June 2014 MRR

Maddi Vijaya Laxmi v. Maddi Ranga Dattatraya Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddi Vijaya Laxmi v. Maddi Ranga Dattatraya Reddy

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

Allada Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Jana Jaya Bharati

V. Narsi Reddy Vs Spl. Tahsildar (La) Railways

Chukka Ramulu Vs Special Tahsildar

Neil Anthony Hessing Vs Andria MEcheal

Mohd. Abdul Khader Qureshi , Afsar Vs Ms. Bee Pasha , Raheemunnisa Begum

Mr. S.G. Nagenderlal Vs Smt. S.N. Sangeera Bai