Remanded

Kanaparthi Sai Krishna v. Nil

Telangana HC4 Sept 2015CRP/3606/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the lower Court's order rejecting registration of a mutual consent divorce petition filed via power of attorney. It directed the lower Court to examine the application afresh in light of cited precedent within two months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of the lower Court; directed the lower Court to examine the application afresh within two months.

Kanaparthi Sai Krishna Vs Nil — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.3606 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

By the order under revision, the Court below rejected registration of the joint petition filed, under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioners by mutual consent.

¶5

The objection taken by the Court below is that Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates the Court to ascertain the mutual consent of the parties for filing the petition; the object of Section 13-B is to ascertain from both parties whether they had filed the petition with free consent or otherwise; Section 13-B mandates parties to appear before the Court; while registering the petition, the Court is required to examine both parties; and G.P.A. holders cannot substitute the presence of the petitioners.

¶6

Sri Velivela Srinivasa Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that both the petitioners had submitted their affidavits, and the special power of attorney authorizing others to file the petition; the petitioners had merely sought registration of the petition; they would appear in person at the time of disposal of the main O.P; and, in the light of the Division Bench Judgments in Bikani Savitha v.

¶7

All Concerne d^[1] ; Mrs.Padmakiran Rao v. Mr.B.Venkataramana Ra o^[2] and S.B.Tirumal Raj v. Smt.Lakshmi Prasann a^[3] , the Court below had erred in rejecting registration of the petition, for divorce by mutual consent, even at the threshold.

¶8

The aforesaid judgments do appear to support the contention of the petitioners herein. None of these judgments were noticed by the Court below. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not substitute its views for that of the Court below. As none of the aforesaid judgments have been

¶9

noticed by the Court below, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order under revision; and direct the Court below to examine the application afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgments at the earliest, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.

¶11

______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) Date:04.09.2015. cs

¶12

[1] 2015 (3) ALT 140 (DB) [2] 1995 (3) ALT 154 (DB) [3] 2012 (2) ALT (Crl.) 82 (AP)

Kanaparthi Sai Krishna v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanaparthi Sai Krishna v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moosaram thota Anjaiah Vs Sri K. Adireddy

P.N.Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs Mrs. P. Gloria

Smt. D. Naga Bhavani Vs Mr. Susheel Kumar

Shaik Shafiullah, Vs Sri G.Chinnaiah

M/s Vuma Resorts Recreatin Club, Vs Smt. Jayalakshmi

Rokkam Sai Kumar Vs Smt. Latha Muvva