Dismissed

Kallagunta Adilakshmi v. Ullamgunta Siva Sankara Rao

Telangana HC18 Jan 2018CMA/199/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a divorce decree, the Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, thus affirming the lower court's decision to deny dissolution.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, upholding the lower court's order declining to pass a decree of dissolution of marriage.

Kallagunta Adilakshmi Vs Ullamgunta Siva Sankara Rao — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 199 of 2008

¶4

Date: 18^th January, 2018

¶5

Between:
Kallagunta Adilakshmi
… Appellant
And
Ullamgunta Siva Sankara Rao
… Respondent
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Sri V. Venugopala Rao
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : None

¶6

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

cma_199_2008 CVNR, J & GSP, J

¶8

¶9

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶10

This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, who, by his order dated 26.11.2007, declined to pass a decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent.

¶11

Heard Mr. V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel representing

¶12

Mr. V. Venugopal Rao. Though served, learned counsel for the respondent has not entered appearance.

¶13

The marriage between the appellant and respondent took place on 08.05.1999. She has filed the aforementioned O.P. under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) for dissolution of her marriage. In support of her plea of cruelty by her husband, the appellant has examined herself as PW.1 and also examined PWs.2 and 3. The respondent himself examined as RW.1 and also examined RW.2. He has also got Exs.B1 to B5 marked on his side.

¶14

In its order, the lower Court has thoroughly discussed the evidence on record. It has observed that PW.2 being a neighbour, there is no possibility of her presence during midnights when the acts of cruelty were allegedly done by the respondent against the appellant. Similarly, the Court below has disbelieved the evidence of PW.3 by

¶15

cma_199_2008 CVNR, J & GSP, J

¶16

¶17

terming him as an interested witness as he used to sell milk to the mother of the appellant twice everyday, and so there was a little chance of the said witness witnessing the alleged acts of cruelty committed by the respondent towards the appellant. In our opinion, the burden of proof being heavily on the appellant, and he has failed to discharge the same. The Court below has, therefore, rightly rejected her allegation of cruelty against the respondent.

¶18

On a reconsideration of the entire material on record, including the evidence, we are of the opinion that the conclusions formed by the Court below are fortified by the material on record and, therefore,

¶19

we are not inclined to interfere with the order and decree under appeal.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶21

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

____________________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶23

18^th January, 2018

¶24

KSM

¶25

cma_199_2008 CVNR, J & GSP, J

¶26

¶27

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶30

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 199 of 2008

¶31

18^th January, 2018

¶32

KSM

Kallagunta Adilakshmi v. Ullamgunta Siva Sankara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallagunta Adilakshmi v. Ullamgunta Siva Sankara Rao

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

The Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Vs The Second Appellate Authority Under Section 48(3)

The Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, (Scheduled Vs The Second Appellate Authority Under Section

The Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Vs The Second Appellate Authority Under Section 48(3)

M.Ramanaiah Naidu Vs the State of A.P.

Posana Venugopal Rao. Vs Posana Lakshmi.

Petta Ananatha Lakshmi Vs Petta Bojji Raju