Dismissed

Mr.R.Neel Kumar v. R. Dhanalakshmi

Telangana HC17 Aug 2023CRP/1555/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition. The petitioner, a husband, challenged the Senior Civil Judge's order allowing his wife to set aside an ex-parte divorce decree. The husband argued he had remarried and had a child after the decree. The Court held that remarriage is not a relevant factor for setting aside an ex-parte decree and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to any party.

Mr.R.Neel Kumar Vs R. Dhanalakshmi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO^NAIDU

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 155sOF2022

¶7

Petition Under Anicle 227 constitution of lndia against the Order^{dated 261O512022in} 1.A.No.363/2020 in HM.O.P. No.55/2019 on the^file of the Court of^{the Senior Civil Judge} Medak.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr.R.Neel Kumar, s/o Late Shanker Rao, age- 42^years, Occ-^{SoftwareEngineer,} R/o H..Nb. 16-115t420, Road No. 14, Vandanapuri Colony, SBI^{Bank, Beeramguda,} Aminpur, Medak - 5502032.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

R. Dhanalakshmi, w/o Neel Kumar, age- about^{33 years, Occ- Household,Rl/o} 18-8-4101151A, Opp, Sai Baba Temple, Likith Bagh, Uppuguda,^Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} dispense with certified copy of the decree daled²⁷ t1gt2}19^{passed in} ,on^the H.M.O.P.N0.55 OF 2019 file of Honble Senior Civil Judge,^{Medak,in the above} c.R.P.

¶16

¶17

IANO: 20^{F 2022}

¶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 stop} the^{proceedings of LA 300/2020 in H M O P' No' 55/2020'}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI' BARKHABHALLA} Counsel^{fortheRespondent:KUMMARISAMUEL}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

-v

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CTYIL REVISION PETIreN No.1555 OF 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A.No.363 of 2O2O, dated 26.05.2022 whereunder the petition frled by the respondent^herein under Order 9 Rule 13 rlw 151 CPC was allowed,^the petitioner who is respondent in the above said interlocutory application fited this civil Revision Petition^{under Article} 227 of Constitution of India on the following^grounds:

¶25

The petitioner has claimed that the trial Court ignored the fact that the divorce was already^{granted to the} petitioner on 27.09.2019 because of the failure of^the respondent herein appearing before the Court^and contesting the divorce petition filed by the^{petitioner.The} petitioner has claimed that in view of exparte decree, dated 27.09.2019 he has married to one Pragnaya Rani^Behera on 29.O2.2O2O and after lapse of appeal^period subsequently, he was blessed with a daughter.^The petitioner further claimed that the respondent while frling LA.No.363 of 2O2O has claimed that the petitioner herein

¶26

CRP No.l5s5ofl0l2

¶27

¶28

convinced her on the ground that all the issues between the couple w,ill be settled amicably and he will withdraw. the divorce petition, thereby she did not appear before the Court, but according to the record, she suppressed the fact that she filed complaint before the police in March, 2019 and rampaged the house of brother of petitioner herein and complained before the police that she was necked out from the matrimonial house on 10.03.2019. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that she believed the version of petition about the alleged compromise and did not contest the divorce petition is nothing but false. The respondent got registered a criminal case under Section 498-4 IPC on 22.07.2019 and the petitioner herein was arrested on 07.O8.2O19. Subsequently, he was released on bail and charge sheet was filed in the said case on 20.t2.2019.

¶29

The petitioner further stated that the respondent having come to know about the exparte order filed another complaint before the Woman police Station, Charminar which was registered as Crime No.150 of 2019. But, the

CRP No.lSSs of 2022

,a:-

trial Court without considering all the above aspects allowed the application and set aside the exparte decree, thereby the petitioner sought for setting aside the order.

¶34

As could be seen from the impugned order, the respondent who is none other than the wife of the petitioner herein frled I.A.No.363 of 2O2O under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the exparte decree dated 27 .O9.2O19.

¶35

In the alfidavit frled in support of the petition, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2019 seeking divorce and having received notice in the petition, she along with elders and family members approached the petitioner herein, questioning hling of the said divorce petition, but the petitioner said to have assured her that he will settle all the issues and he will not proceed in the said petition and having believed the said version, she kept quiet, but subsequently in view of the absence of the respondent, the Court below having examined the petitioner passed an exparte decree, thereby prayed for setting aside the exparte decree.

( \

CRP i\o.1555 ol:(,2:

The petitroner who has opposed tl.re said application raised all the issues which he referred in the present revision ald sought for dismissal of the petition. However, the trial Court accepted the contention of the respcndent and allowed the petition giving opportunity to the respondent to contest the petition.

¶40

The main ground on which the petitioner sought for setting aside the order is subsequent to the exparte decree in H.M.O.p.No.5S of 2019 having waited for a period of 5 months, he married another lady thorough whom he got femaie child, thereby he sought for setting aside the order. The other contention raised by the petitioner is about the criminal cases filed by the respondent during the pendency of divorce case.

¶41

Hear.d both parties.

¶42

8 Now the point for consideration is:

¶43

Whether tLe Court belou committed, ang error in allouing the petition Jiled bg the respondent? If so, uthether the ord.er is tiable to be set aside?

CRP No.l555 of 2022

9. POIITT:

Even though the petitioner did not state anything about the other application filed by the respondent vide I.A.No.300 of 2O2Qm as per the copy of the order filed by the respondent, it is quite clear that along with I.A.No.363 of 2022 the respondent/wife hled I.A.No.3OO of 2O2O under Section 5 of Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay of 27O days in filing I.A.No.363 of 2O2O under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the expa-rte decree dated 27.O9.2O19. The record further shows that learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak having heard both parties allowed I.A.No.300 of 2O2O and being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner herein hled CRP No.686 of 2O2L. This Court having heard both^{partiesdismissedthe} revision petition by order^{dated 23'11.2022and confirmed} the order of trial^{Court, in condoningthe delay in filing} petition under Order^{9 Rule 13 CPC.}

¶48

The ground^{raised by the respondentin the above} petition in I.A.No.3OO^{of 2O2Q and grounds under which} she sought for setting^{aside exparte decreein I'A'No'363 of}

¶49

¶50

CRP 'o.1555 of2022

¶51

2O2O arc almost one and the same. The contentions raised by the respondent/u,ife and objections raised by the petitioner herein 'vvere considered by this Court in CRp No.686 of 2O2l and the revision preferred by the present petlttoner was dismisseci.

¶52

The respondent/wife placed reliance on judgment between J.Shagm Babu a. J.Rajlnt Kumqrit,wherein this Court observed that^,,rnere remarriage of the husband who obtained exparte decree of diuorce uiil not render appliccttion to set asid.e exparte d.ecree filed. ba wrfe infructuous. Remarriage of spottse is not a releuant factor to be taken into account in d.ecid.ing meits of application.,

¶53

72' In the above said judgment this court referred judgment between A-Raja sund.ari u. suresh Kumar2, Dr.Lokeshutari a. Dr.Sriniaq.sa Raos, parimq.l o. Veena @Bhartia and. VtJago,lakshmi a. Kannappans.

¶54

| 2022 (5|ALD 355 tTSt

¶55

'/^{AIR 2016} Mad. t6o

¶56

3 2000 (3) ALD 350 IDBI 4 2011 3 SCc 545 s 2009 c.l Md. 5695

CRP No.l555 of2022

'./'

The respondent/wife having disputed all the contentions of the petitioner has submitted that even if the contention of the petitioner that he married one Pragnaya Rani on 29.O2.2O2O, there is evidence to believe that she gave birth to a healthy baby without any complication on 23.O9.2O2O i.e., within 7 months though it was no mentioned in the medical records that it was a premature delivery. Therefore, it clearly shows that the petitioner who is having illicit relation with said Pragrraya Rani only to legalize the same married her, after obtaining exparte decree behind the back of respondent, suppressing the real facts that too during the lockdown period due to Covid pandemic

¶61

L4. The respondent further claimed that she has already filed medical record in support of the above contentions and further submitted that the alleged remarriage which proves to be a false one may not be a ground for dismissing her request to set aside the exparte decree. The^petitioner did not dispute the above dates on which he is^said to^have married Pragnaya Rani and the date on which she^gave

I I

CRP No.l55s of 2022

birth to a female child. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that in vierv of exparte decree he married another lady a,d begot children cannot be considered in the present revision petition. The Court below having cliscussed the aspects came to correct concrusion while allowing the petition filed by the r.espondent/wife. In fact when once the petition filed by the respondent under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay was allowed, the petition rrled under order 9 Rule 13 cpc based o. the same grounds, cannot be dismissecl as desired by the petitioner.

¶66