Allowed

K. Narasimha Chary, Medak Dist. v. St. Krishnaveni, Nizamabad Dist.

Telangana HC22 Jun 2022CMA/140/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the husband against the lower court's dismissal of his dissolution of marriage petition. Finding substantial evidence of cruelty and desertion, the court held the marriage irretrievably broken and ordered its dissolution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and decree in O.P. No. 3 of 2007 set aside; O.P. No. 3 of 2007 allowed; marriage between parties dissolved.

K. Narasimha Chary, Medak Dist. Vs St… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

I I \

[³²⁶⁴¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶8

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 140 OF 2009

¶9

Appeal Under Section 28 of Hindu [Vlarriage Act, 1955 against the Order/Decree in OP No. 3 of 2007 dated 31/08/2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

¶10

Between:

¶11

K. NARASIIMHA CHARY, MEDAK DIST., S/o. Ramaswamy Occ: Labour R/o H.No. 13-68, Gandhi Nagar, Siddipet town and Mandal, Medak District.

¶12

..,APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

SMT. KRISHNAVENI, NIZAMABAD DIST., W/o. Narasimha Chary Occ: Pvt. Teacher, Presently Residing at H.No. 1-8-30, Subhash Nagar, Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI. K GOVIND ADVOCATE

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

Tl'lE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶21

CIVI L MISc E LLANEOUS A PPEAL No.14O OF 2OO9

¶22

.r-UDG MENT: (Per the ilon'ble Dr.SA,J)

¶23

This Civil Miscellaneous Appea!, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is filed by the appellant/husband, aggrieved by the order and decree. dated 31.12.2008^passed in O.P.No.3 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, r,.rhereby the petition filed by the appeilant/husband under Section r3(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu lrlarriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage, was dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

Notice sent to the respondent/wife returned with an endorsement "refused". Therefore, notice is deemed to have been served on the respondent/wife. Though notice was refused in the year 2009, tiil date, neither the respondent/wife appeared nor engaged any counsel to represent her. Many opportunities were given to the i-espondent/wife. Even though the matter was

)

posted "for orders", there is no appearance or representation for the respondent/wife.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant/husband would contend that there is substantial evidence on record to^prove that the respondent/wife treated the appellant/husband with cruelty and deserted him. The Court below ought to have dissolved the marriage between the parties. Both the parties are living separately since 16 years. There are no chances of reunion between the parties. The marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and ultimately^prayed to aside the impugned order and decree and allow the appeal, as prayed for.

¶31

As per the pleadings and the evidence on record, the marriage between the parties was^performed on 08.06.1995 at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. The respondent/wife left the company of the appellant/husband in the year 2006 and living separately since then. There was a compromise between the parties earlier in the year 2006. Even after filing the subject O.P. in the^year 2007, there is no reunion between the^parties and they did not live together at any^point of time. So many eFforts are made by the appellant/h usband for amicable settlement and to lead a marital life with the respondent/wife.

¶32

¶33

The material on record goes to show that the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife are living separately from the year 2007. So, it can be safely concluded that there is no possibility of reunion. Under these circumstances, the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the appellant/husband is entitled for dissolution of ma rriag e.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order and decree, dated 31.12.2008, passed in O.P.No.3 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, is set aside. Consequently, O.P.No.3 of 2OO7 stands allowed and the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife solemnised on 08.06.1995 is hereby dissolved.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

SD/- K. SRINIVASA o JOINT REGIS R //TRUE COPY//

¶37

SECTION O FICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 The Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak^{Dist. (with} records)

¶40

2 One CC to SRl. K GOVIND Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CD Copies One Spare Copy KAR I4

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:2210612022

¶43

//-; g STArf
i oB LEt ?m
<?
,r,lCl.f,
-;7

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.140 ot 2009

ALLOWING THE CMA

WITHOUT COSTS

3
R4 0 tu?E

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

¶50

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY^{SECOND DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶51

PRESENT

¶52

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶53

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 140 OF 2009

¶54

Between:

¶55

K. NARASIMHA CHARY, S/o. Ramaswamy, Occ: Labour R/o. H.No. 13-68, Gandhi Nagar, Siddipet town and Mandal, Medak District.

¶56

...APPELLANT

¶57

AND

¶58

SMT. KRISHNAVENI, Wo. Narasimha Chary, Occ: Pvt. Teacher, Presently Residing at H.No. 1-B-30, Subhash Nagar, Kamareddy Town, Nizamabad District.

¶59

...RESPONDENT

¶60

Appeal Under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Order and Decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Siddipet. ln Original Petition No. 3 of 2007 dated 31108/2008.

¶61

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of Lower Court and the material papers in the original petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. K. Govind Advocate, for the Appellant and of None Appeared for the Respondent.

¶62

This court both Order and Decree as follows.

¶63

1. That the civil miscellaneous appeal be and hereby is allowed and the impugned order and decree, dated 3111212008,^passed in O.P.No. 3 ot 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet is set aside.

¶64

1. That, consequently, O.P.No. 3 o'f 2007, be and hereby stands allowed and the marriage between the appellanUhusband and the respondenUwife solemnised on 08/06/1995 be and hereby is dissolved;

¶65

That there be no order as to costs in appeal

¶66

SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIST R

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION FFICER

To,

1 The Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Medak Dist. (with records)

^Y2 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210612022

DECREE

CMA.No.140 of 2009

ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

ah
dl tl
b

K. Narasimha Chary, Medak Dist. v. St. Krishnaveni, Nizamabad Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Narasimha Chary, Medak Dist. v. St. Krishnaveni, Nizamabad Dist.

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

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

R. Sai Reddy Vs R. Swetha

Kona Susheela Vs Dr.Mrs.Lakshmi Chandrakanthi Kona

Syed Nawaz Pasha Vs Syeda Sabeen Ather and 3 Others

D. Nanda Kumar Vs Smt. D. Varalakshmi

Pinnapureddy Geetha Vs The State of Telangana