Partly allowed

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, , Meena v. Madapathi Raju

Telangana HC20 Jun 2022CMA/210/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of an appeal against a divorce decree, holding the divorce justified based on cruelty and desertion. However, the Court modified the lower court's order by granting permanent alimony of Rs. 2,50,000 to the wife, noting the husband's ability to pay and his remarriage.

What did the court decide?

Granting of permanent alimony of Rs. 2,50,000 to the appellant wife to be paid within three months. No order as to costs.

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, , Meena Vs Madapathi Raju — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

132641

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IVONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

C.M.A. NO: 210 OF 2008

¶8

Appeal under Section 28'of the Hindu [t/arriage Act, against the Order and decree in OP No.53 of 2005 dated 2211012007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, lVledak at Saganreddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. [t/adapthi Kavitha, @ Meena, W/o. IMadapthi Raju

¶11

...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

Madapathi Raju, S/o. Gurulingaiah Swamy

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶15

For the Appellant : SRI MOHAN VINOD AND ASSOCIATES, Advocates

¶16

For the Respondent : SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate

¶17

The Court delivered the following : JUDGIVENT

¶18

¶19

/'-ll

¶20

THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVI L MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL No.21O of 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. lustjce Shameem Akther)

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is filed by the appellant/wife aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 22.10.2007 passed in O.p.No.53 oF 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the subject O.P filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking decr-ee of divorce, was allowed dissolving the marriage between the parties, which r.",as solemnized on 22.05.1998.

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the record

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would contend that though there is no desertion and cruelty on the part of the appellant/wife, the Couft belolrr without there being any evidence on record was pleased to grant the relief as sought by the respondent/husband, which is unsustainable under law. Though the respondent/husband is doing business and got sufficient meAnq no permanent alimony was granted to the appellant/wife

¶25

¶26

by the Court below and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as pi-ayed for.

¶27

4, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that there is orai evidence to substantiate that the appellant/wife had treated the respondent/husband with cruelty and deserted him. There are valid grounds to grant the decree of dissolution of marriage, After examining the entire evidence, the Court below granted the relief of dissolution of marriage vide impugned order, dated 22.L0.2007, which is justified. The respondent/husband got married again and begotten two children and cioing some business to maintain his famiry and urtimatery prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶28

In view of the above rival submissions, the points that arise for determination are: -

¶29

Whether the Court below is justified in dissolving the

¶30

marriage between the parties, which was solemnized on 22.0s.1998?

¶31

2:. Whether the appellant/wife is entiiled for permanent alimony as contended on her behalf?

J i

POINTS:

As seen from the material^placed on record, the marriage between the^parties took^place on^{22.05.1998 as per} the^Hindu rites and customs prevailing in the community. Both the^parties lived together for sometime and thereafter, the appellant/wife left the house without informing the respondent/husband. There is also record to substantiate that a criminal case was^filed against the respondent/husband for the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC and that case was entered into compromise. Thereafter, another case in Crime No.91 of 2005 was filed against the iespondent/husband and his^parents. There^is evidenCe to substantiate that the appellant/wife was^quarelling with the respondent/husband and his parents. The^parties lived together only for a short time. Most of the time, the appellant/wife was away from the matrimonial house. By^the date of^{pronouncement} of^judgment, both the^{pariies are living} separately for 6/7 years. As on today also, there^{is no attempt} from either side to live together. There are^{strained relations in} between the parties. The marriage between the^partieswas broken down irretrievably. The Court below^{had also placed} reliance over the decision rendered by this^{Court in S.Sarada}

¶36

\ \

¶37

¶38

Kumari v. S.Eswar Rao1. In view of these circumstances, it is not appropriate to interfere urith the impugned order of grant of divorce between the parties.

¶39

As far as grant of permanent alimony is concerned, the Court below had not granted single pie to the appellant/wife. Admittedly, the respondent/husband is doing business, maintaining second wife and two children. So, in view of the status of the parties to the litigation, it would be just and proper to award an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to the appellant/wife.

¶40

Accordingly, appeal is disposed of granting an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to the appellant/wife payable by the respondent/husband within three(3) months from today, There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

¶42

shall stand closed.

¶43

'^{1991(3) ALT 2 (NRC)}

¶44

¶45

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII' ..)s*t\ ,/-/

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

The Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.^{(with records)} 2. One CC to Sri Mohan Vinod and Associates [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath,^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy Kj ,r'f

'\ \

,'. lL$

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010612022

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.210 of 2008

t TflE 5 >^.,i
li uu rtn
/
\ *

¶56

DISPOSING OF CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

e.p

132641

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶61

AT HYDERABAD

¶62

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE

¶63

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶66

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶67

C.M.A. NO: 210 OF 2008

¶68

Between:

¶69

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, @ Meena, Wo. Madapthi Raju Rl/o.Kothur (B) Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, presently residing at Ranjole Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, ...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT AND

¶70

Madapathi Raju, S/o. Gurulingaiah Swamy, R/o.Kothur (B) Village, Zaheerabad Mandal,

¶71

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶72

Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the Order and decree of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Saganreddy in OP No.53 of 2005 dated 22l1Ol2OO7.

¶73

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the original petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohan Vinod and Associates, for the Appellant and of Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶74

This Court doth Judgment and decree as follows :-

¶75

That the CMA be and hereby is disposed of granting an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand onlyl towards permanent alimony to the appellanU wife payable by the respondenU husband within three (3) months from today; and

¶76

That there be no Order as to cost in this CMA.

¶77

s'5Bii,f H'trU+=5,J //TRUE COPYII V+

¶78

SECTION OFFICER

¶79

¶80

The Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶81

Two CD Copies

¶82

One Spare Copy

kj \i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010612022

DECREE

CMA.No.210 of 2008

DISPOSING OF CMA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶91

o I
I
qs
v i

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, , Meena v. Madapathi Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madapthi Kavitha, , Meena v. Madapathi Raju

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

Ashrath Zaban Vs The State of Telangana

Indravath Lakshmi Vs The Legal Services Authority

Sabavath Srikanth And 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

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

Mrs. Parveen Vs The state of Telengana

Sri. Bassi Ram Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others