Remanded

Dr. DayankaDukkipati v. Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/1256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order refusing to summon original documents from the State Commission for Women. The court remanded the matter, directing the trial court to summon and mark the originals through a witness after giving parties an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Remanded the matter for summoning originals from the Telangana State Commission for Women and marking them through a proper witness after giving parties an opportunity.

Dr. DayankaDukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIITWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Smt. }USTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

Civil Revision Petition No. 1256 of 2023

¶6

Revision filed under Artrcle 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated27.O3.2O23 passed in I.A.No.382 of 2O?3 in F.C.O.P.No.76 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additional District & Sessions Court, Nizamabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati, W/o. Arun Shyam, Aged about 40 years, OccMedical Practitioner, R/o Flat No. K4, |.8. Tower, Pragathinagar,^Nizamabad. (Presently at Hyderabad)

¶9

..petitioner/^petitioner/ Respondent.

¶10

AND

¶11

Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam, S/o M. Babu Rao, Aged about⁴² years, OccDentist, R/o H. No. 1-1-1536, Rakasipet, Bodhan, Nizamabad.

¶12

...Respondent/ Respondent/ Petitioner.

¶13

IANO: lOF2023

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suPPort of the petition,^{the High Courtmay} be pleased to pass orders granting interim stay of all further^proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 76 of 2019 pending on the file of the^{Family Court-cum-Ill} Addt. District and Sessions Court, at Nizamabad^{pendingdisposalof the} main CRP.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Volimineni^Manognya

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. K.Sri Devi.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

't'H[. ltt)\ot rt.r \til.E st,l't'. Jt]sl'tcE p. sR],tu st,rDItA ( l ll. Rl-\ lSlO\ I'll l'l'l'lON No.l256 OI.2023

¶19

ORD},]R

¶20

fl is^t-- i il I{ci i'ion I'cririon is t-rlcd ag rin;t thc orlel ol'thc trial coLrrt in 1.,.\ r. llil trl l(rll in I:.( .O.[).\o.7(j 0l']01(, drrcd l7.0j,l0lj passed hy th: Jr"rdgc. I urnilv Court-cum-lll Addi .it:nal Distr-icl. and Sessions Cour . \izarnrrbrd

¶21

l. I'l-rc li^(,:).P \ro 7(r ol'l()l9 is filed br the lrusbirnd against thc respondcrrl - ', i i' lbr lnrruln'rcnt ol' the marrialtc. ['te tr.l'.O.p.No.2 oll0 l9 is tlled lr rlt,: rvilc iirl resrirLrrion of rhe conjtLga r.ights. t)uring thc pendcncr. ol lrc procccclirrr-l:;. an application virle L..\o.(22 ot'2019 in F.C.O.P.No.l .r1 l0l9 is lrlccl bl,the husband ro.alLlbr ()enain documehts liom tht'^'l'cl rngana Starc C'onrnrission for \'ornelr anrl thc same is allcruc'd Lr1, t ,c trial (loLrrr br irs ordcr daterr i9.04.2.0:.2. ,{gain an applicatiirn is liJcd by the husband vide I.A.No 63 of D2: in C).p.No.76 o1'2019 to rss re sulrritons trr tlrc \ccretarr'.^'l elirnpanrt litate Commission [br \I'orncn li ,- lrrrking rht sair.] Ll()cuntcnts in t.A.N,r. l-s7 ol- 1022, buL in thc counrcr tllerl Ll thc * ili, she requested the Cour-r to dircct thc said witncss 1o b,rir c rhc oriuinuls ()l lhc rttcstccl copies o1- lrc documcrnts. J'hc trial⁽ orr.t r' lt,-tLtL :tir itr.. rrrrl cli'ce tion lbr. sutnrrLonirr, <.1'thc originals only uar c lr r ir--cliun t() sul1l11()n the u,itnesses. A: : uclr, he appcarecl

¶22

¶23

:vt

¶24

be[ore thc Coutl aud the said documeuts wctc tnat kccl throtti:.h tlic^{ri i'.tlcss} at tlrc tirnc ol rtrarking ol' thc docutncnt.^{Wile oltrosedihc szttttr-'ttlt tilc} ground that the originals are lying with the Telangana State Cornnrission lor Wornen. thev are not called for antl the documct-tts llled^beforethe Courl in I'.(-.O.1'.No.l of- 20[9^are not rnarkcd. as the said L). P.^was withdrarvn by the wit'e.^-fhe Court directed the counsel^{ol the wifc to file} a scparate application for calling the oliginal^{docutncntsfrom thc} l clangana Statc Conrrnission^{{br Wotncn,as such, I.r.No.182 ol'2021 in} F'.C.O.P.No.76 ot20l9 is filed. it^{was dismisscdon the ground that the} application is filed only to proiong^{the litigation.Aggrievedby the said} order. this^('i'"'il Revision^{Petition is filed.}

¶25

i. f he leamed counse! for the respondent^{rcported no obiection lirl'} sunrmoning lhe original documents^{from the Telangana StateCornrnissiolt} f or Worncn as he is tlorc^{particular fbl cxpeclitiousdisposal ol thc case.}

¶26

Therefore, this Court without^{goinginto the meritsof thecase} finds it reasonable to allow^{the Civil RevisiorrPetition to remandthe} maticr to the triat Court^{with a directionto summollthc originals from the} Telangana State Commission^{for Womenand to mark the sameagain} through proper rvitness lrom the said^{WomenCorrmissionby duly.giving} an opportunity to both^{the partics lor rnarkingol'the docuntcntsanci tbr}

¶27

¶28

1 rtr I^{)irr rr)r'}

¶29

cl'l)ss-c \ it IIllll tt Il Ihc |gi11i11;1!', is also ciilcet:cl tL, .r ol ,L.lltc \.itlt thc

¶30

C otrrt lirr carl) dis|osal ol thc cti:c

¶31

i. Ilr tI : result. rlrr'('iril I{cr ision peritron rs .r lor,ed bv setting asitlc thr'()r(icr ol-tltc triul ( rrLrrt

¶32

N,l sr -'llancous lpplications. il-an1,. pcnrlinu. :hrrll stand closed.

¶33

\ \

¶34

Stl/- V. KAVITHA I\SSIS'^-4.N']' REGISTRAR ( rl-t //TRUEC)PY// S11'lTlON OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

1 The Judge, F; rnily Courlcum-lll Aclditional District k Sessions Court, Nizamabad.

¶37

2 One CC to Sr i Volimineni Manognya, Advocate [OP -(]] J One CC to Sr K.Sri Devi, Aclvocate [OPUC] 4 Tu,o CD Cop es

JCK

HIGH COURI

DATED:Z|/0a/202t

[1 ,l

ORDER

CRP.No.1256 ctf 202)

Allowing the C.R.P.

craio' $ro Z \

Dr. DayankaDukkipati v. Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. DayankaDukkipati v. Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

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

Kothawalli Raji Reddy Vs Mrs. Kanukala Sathemma

T. Venkata Siva Rao, Vs Padala Tagore, and Another

Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust Vs S.G. Rayappa Raju

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

M. Sridhar Rao, Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Perumalla Sammaiah