Disposed

S. Valli Swaroopa v. J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma

Telangana HC2 Mar 2021FCA/66/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as not pressed. The Court granted liberty to the parties to approach the Family Court for a divorce by mutual consent and waiver of the cooling-off period.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of as not pressed. Liberty granted to parties to approach the Family Court for divorce by mutual consent and waiver of the cooling-off period.

S. Valli Swaroopa Vs J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B,VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶9

F C.A. NO: 66 OF 2020

¶10

Appeal under section 1 9 OF Family Courts Act 1984, Appeal against the Decree and Order dated 0410612019 passed in O.P.No.1631 of 2015 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court cum Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court At Hyderabad.

¶11

Between:

¶12

S. Valli Swaroopa, W/o. J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma, Aged about 29 Years, Occ. Government Servant, R/o.H.No.MC23, tr/alakpet, Near TV Tower, Hyderabad.

¶13

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 38 Years, Occ. BDL Employee, R/o.H.No.24-143112121 , Plot No.49, Bhramarambika Nagar, Near Subhadaya Apartments, l,4alkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTiRESPONDENT.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to condone the delay 255 of days in filing the Appeal.

¶19

lA NO:^'f OF 202'l

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to record the compromise statement and dissolve the marriage of the^{Petitionerand} Respondent dt.14-11-2013 by setting aside the Decree and Order/Judgement in O.P.No.'1639 of 2015 dt. 04-06-2019 on the^{file of Principal Judge, Family Court} cum Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at: Hyderabad.

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Between:

I / /

J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 38 Years, Occ. BDL Employee, R/o.H.No.24-143112121, Plot No.49, Bhramarambika Nagar, Near Subhadaya Apartments, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

¶25

,..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER.

¶26

And

¶27

S Valli Swaroopa, W/o. J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma, Aged about 2g Years, Occ. Government Servant, R/o.H.No.tr,4C23, Malakpet, Near TV Tower, Hyderabad.

¶28

...RESPONDENTPETITIONER

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on 1411112013 by allowing the appeal.

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant :

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶32

DR. GEDDADA SRINIVAS

¶33

SRI JUMVPRASAD

¶34

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶35

ll.rrr \o.1 l

¶36

I ilL llo<sup>'BI-1.. l'llI'l (IIIEl",lts.fl('laIl I\I A KolIt-l

¶37

,\ l)

¶38

t'llI llo\l]^{LE SIII J t- s'l I( I:B. \ IJ.\YS[\ l{IDl)</sup>}

¶39

F.C.A.N^{o.66 of 2020}

¶40

JUDGMENT:^{(Per the Hon'blethe Chief JusticeHima Kohli)}

¶41

The^{appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment dated} 04.06.2019^{passedby the learnedFamily Court' Hyderabad on a} divorce^{perition hled by her under Section l3(1xia) of the Hindu} \larriage^{Act.1c)55*hcrcbr ' the lcarrlecl Irenlilv Court hasclcclinecl to} !t,tnt har^{clir otcc. trll lllc LfotttttlLhlt sllc ]las lnilcd Lo1-;tor c the} rllcgati.orl:;^{ol'itrlpotettcr le r cllccl lsailrstthe lesllon denti hr-rsbiitrcl} L l-c'arned coLlll5'l^{ttrI thc rrp|"ilrtntstiitcs that thc mar|iage ol the} partics^{\rts solctrltriseclori l-1 1I 1013' thci had scpalatedin} "\LtgLtst' l0l4 and^{therc is r.ro issue ll'onl the tlarriagc' Noq ' the palties have} agrcecl^{that thcl *'ill eo ilr 1br dir trrcc lr) lrLltual consent'}

¶42

( (

¶43

3 The t'espondentlhr'rsband '^{who is plesent in the virtualhealing} ar.rcl has^{been identifledb.v learneclcounselfor the appellant' states that} l.re is agreeable^{to cooperate* ith the appellant/wife in seeking divorce} by n-rutual^collsent'

¶44

l. [.eartlcd^{coltltscllilt' rhc app.-:11ant se clts pcrmission to s ithdratr} the ptesellt^{allpcal'rihilc tcscL'ritlu'the light ol'thc parrics to tlorclhc}

¶45

l,n!c.^{I 0l )}

¶46

L'.C...1..<sup>o.6bol )0)t)

¶47

leamed Family Court lor seeking waiver of the cooling off period of six rnonths, as conternplated in the Statr-rte

¶48

ln vieu, ol tlre sr,rbmission nracle trr lealnc'cl counsel lbl the appellant hereinabove, the present appeal is disposed o1'as not pressed along w'ith the pending applications. i{-anr. Libertf is granted to both sides to approach the learned Family Coirrt fbr ntor,ing an application lor seeking divorce by mutual consent and lbr waiver of the cooling ofT period. As and when such an application is flled. the same shall be considered by the learned Family Court and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶49

SD/.K.SRINIVASA^RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principal^{Judge, Family Court cum Additional Chief Judge'Hyderabad}

¶54

One CC^{to DR. GEDDADA SRINIVAS, AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶55

One CC to^{SRI J U M V PRASAD,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶56

Two CD CoPies

¶57

¶58

1".(,.1,,\o.66 ol 20 )0

l'tga 2 ol )

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210312021

JUDGMENT

, ..;l
s TA
1
0gl,lAn 2021
..-
t

¶64

FCA.No.66 ot 2020

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE F.C.A AS NOT PRESSED.

¶66

S. Valli Swaroopa v. J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Valli Swaroopa v. J. Durga Venkata Satish Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mandal Revenue Officer Vs Nagannagari Prathap Reddy

Smt. K. Satyavani Vs The High Court for the State of Telangana and 3 others

J.Rugvedh Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

K. Devanand Vs L. Rammohan

Mr. B.Issac Bhasker Rao Vs Mrs. B. Surekha Bhasker

Ch.Vijaya, Vs P.Raghuveera Reddy