Allowed

Rutthala Srinivas v. Rutthala Jyothi

Telangana HC23 Nov 2015CRP/2758/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision allowed; order disposing of a DNA test application in a matrimonial dispute for annulment of marriage is set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration due to lack of prima facie evidence evaluation and party inclusion in the test.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to lower court for fresh orders.

Rutthala Srinivas Vs Rutthala Jyothi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2758 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner herein is the husband, who filed H.M.O.P.No.7/2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, seeking a decree for annulment of marriage dated 11.03.2009 between the petitioner and respondent. In the said petition, the petitioner alleged that there was no consummation of marriage and in spite of the same a male child was born to them on 13.01.2010. In the said petition, I.A.No.199/2013 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction of the Court to send both the petitioner and the son of respondent for D.N.A. test. The respondent filed a counter stating as follows:

¶5

“The prayer mentioned in the petition is not correct. The petitioner mention that send himself and respondent for DNA test is not proper prayer. If the petitioner having real interest to bring the real facts before the Hon’ble Court. The petitioner must ask for send himself and son of the petitioner and respondent. The respondent have no objection to brought their son for DNA test. In view of the prayer respondent mentioned in the petition is not maintainable.”

¶6

The application of petitioner was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 03.09.2014 holding that the marriage took place between the parties on 11.03.2009 and the respondent gave birth to a male child on 13.01.2010 during the subsistence of marriage. In view of the presumption engrafted under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner cannot ask for any D.N.A. test of the son of the respondent without adducing any prima facie evidence. The lower Court has not seen the above averment of the respondent in her counter.

¶7

In the circumstances, this Court feels that the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in I.A.No.199/2013 dated 03.09.2014 needs reconsideration, and, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, for passing appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law.

¶8

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J

¶11

23.11.2015 MVA

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶13

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2758 of 2015

¶14

Date: 23.11.2015

¶15

MVA

Rutthala Srinivas v. Rutthala Jyothi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rutthala Srinivas v. Rutthala Jyothi

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

Nadimigorla Anjaneyulu, Vs Kuppala Chinna Subbaiah

Pagidala Nikhil Vs Laxmareddygari Spandana Reddy

A.Rathnamma Vs Nare Subramanyam

Koppu Laxmi Vs Chinthapalli Shanker Rao

Bandi Ramulu, Vs Sri R. Shankeraiah, (Major)

M/s Leela Enterprises Vs Smt.Kamar Sultana