Allowed

R. Sai Reddy v. R. Swetha

Telangana HC21 Jun 2022CMA/1262/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Dissolving the marriage dated 12.12.1999 as both parties had amicably resolved to end it in a Lok Adalat award dated 05.01.2015, citing long separation and irretrievable breakdown.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and decree dated 27.06.2008 in O.P. No. 66 of 2005 are set aside, and the original petition for dissolution of marriage dated 12.12.1999 is allowed, effectively dissolving the marri

R. Sai Reddy Vs R. Swetha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE^{DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE JUWADISR]DEVI}

¶4

CIVIL MIS CELLANE^{OUS APPEALNO: 1262 OF 2008}

¶5

Appeal under section^{28 of Hindu MarriageAct, againstthe orderanddecree} in oP No.66 0f 2005 dated 27t0612008^{0n the file of the courtof the senior civil} Judge, SangareddY.

¶6

Between:

¶7

R.Sai Reddy, sio. Balram^{ReddyAgriculture,Fl/o. MamidipallyVillage,Sangareddy} Mandal' Medak District

¶8

...AppELLANT/pETtrtoNER

¶9

AND

¶10

R. Swetha, W/o. Sai Reddy^{TailoringRl/o.H.No. 4-9-133, Prashanth Nagarcolony,} sangareddy' Medak District

¶11

...RE''.NDENT/^RES'.NDENT

¶12

For the Appellant : SRI B'NALIN^{KUMAR'Advocate}

¶13

For the Respondent : SRI^{L.PRABHAKARREDDY,Advocate}

¶14

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶15

{ {

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEIVI AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶18

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1262 of 2OO8

¶19

JUDGMENT: (Per Han'bte Dr.sA,r)

¶20

This Civit Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is filed by the appellant/husband aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 27.06.2008, passed in O.P.No.66 of 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the subject O.P filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(r)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage dated 12.12.1999 performed in between lrim and the respondent/wife, was dismissed.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/husband and the learned counsel for the respondent/wife and perused the record.

¶22

In the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that both the appellant/husband and the responderrt/ wife have amicably resolved their disputes and in the award dated 05.01.2015^passed in Lok Adalat, Sangareddy, Medak District, both^parties agreed to dissolve the marriage^perfcrmed in between them on t2.I2.1999.

¶23

¶24

Since the appellant/lrusband^{and respondent/wifehave} cornpromlsecl and wanted to dissolve^{th,eir rnarriagedated} t2.12.1999 in terms of the settlement^{reached by them in Lok} Adalat and as there is long separation^{in l'.retweenthem, they} reached to such a^position that there^{cannot he reunion in between} them, the marriage between the appellant/husband^{and the} respondent/wife^performed on^{12.L2.7999 has irretrievablybroken} dovrn. Under these circumstances,^{the niai'riage between the} appellant/trusband ar.rd respotident/''vife^{pei-ioi-med an 12.12.1999} as per the Hindu customs anci rights,^{is dissclved.}

¶25

Accordingly, ttris Ci'ril Miscellaneous^r\Dpeal is^{allowed and} the impugned order and decree, dated 27.06.2008,^passedin O.P.No.66 cf 2C05 by the learned Senior Civl! iudge,^Sangaredcly, is set aside. Consequently, the subject O.P.i',Jo.66^ol= 2005^stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶26

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^pending, shall stand^closed.

¶27

¶28

//TRUE COPYII

¶29

Sd/-B,S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT GISTRAR

¶30

SECTION OFFICER

¶31

¶32

1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy,^{Medak District. (with records)} 2. One CC to Sri B.Nalin Kumar,^Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri L.Prabhakar^{Reddy, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶33

Two CD Copies

¶34

One Spare Copy

K/ti

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110612022

JUDGMENT

*$
s

CMA.No.1262 of 2008

ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶42

n
Lf

¶43

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶45

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶46

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE^{DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} AND

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI}

¶48

CIVIL MISC^{ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1262OF 2008}

¶49

Between:

¶50

R.Sai Reddy, s/o.^{Balram Reddy Agriculture,Rl/o. Ir/amidipallyvillage,Sangareddy} lvlandal' Medak District'

¶51

...AppELLANT/pETtrtoNER

¶52

AND

¶53

R. Swetha, wo. sai Reddy^{Tailoring R/o. H.No. 4-9-133, Prashanth Nagar Colony,} sangareddy' Medak District

¶54

...RES'.NDENT/ REspoNDENT

¶55

Appeal under section^{28 of Hindu MarriageAct, againstthe orderand decree} of the Court of the Senior^{Civil Judge, Sangareddy in OP No'66 of 2005'}

¶56

ORDER:Thisappealcomingonforhearing,anduponperusingthegroundsof Appeal, the Judgment and^{deiree of the LowerCourt and the material papers in the} case and upori hearing^{the arguments of Sri B.Nalin Kumar, Advocate for the} Appellant and of Sri^{L.Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocatefortheRespondent'}

¶57

1 That the CMA e and^{hereby is allowed.}

¶58

That impugned order^{and decreedated27tOGl2OO8,passedin OP No.66 of} 2005 by the Senior Civil^{Judge, Sangared dy is set aside andconsequentlY,} the subject O.P.No.66^{of 2005 stands allowed} -and^{the marriage between} appellant and respondent^{performedon 12l 1211999is dissolved.}

¶59

That there shall be^{no Order as to costsand}

¶60

Sd/-B.S.CHI NJEEVI JOINT R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Senior Civil Judge,^{Sangareddy, Medak District}

¶65

Two CD Copies

¶66

One Spare^CoPY

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:.2't10612022

=$
"&
<br>

DECREE

CMA.No.1262 of 2008

ALLOWING THE^{CMA WITHOUT COSTS.}

¶76

qA ,/i\ tl.

R. Sai Reddy v. R. Swetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sai Reddy v. R. Swetha

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

Sri D. Shyam Kumar Vs Smt D. Ratnamala , Pavani

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, , Meena Vs Madapathi Raju

Mrs. Parveen Vs The state of Telengana

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indukuri Veera Shekara Satyamani and 4 Others

Kona Susheela Vs Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi Chandrakanthi Kona

Shaik Ibrahim Vs The State of Telangana