Telangana High Court
CMA/907/2009 of T.Ramachandra Reddy Vs T.Susheela on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.907 of 2009 Between: T. Ramachandra Reddy ….. Appellant AND T. Suseela
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND NINE
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO
ANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASADC.M.A.No.907 of 2009
Between:
T. Ramachandra Reddy
….. Appellant
AND
T. Suseela
…... Respondent
JUDGMENT:(Per B.Prakash Rao, J)
Heard both sides. At the consent of both the counsel, theappeal is being taken up for disposal.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 07-07-2009 by thePrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, in H.M.O.P.No. of 2009(R.No.1402 of 2009) filed under Section 13 of the Hindu MarriageAct seeking divorce, rejecting the same on the ground that thepresent application cannot be maintained for granting divorcesecond time, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Court belowwho filed the petition against the respondent-wife under Section 13of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for divorce. The said petitionwas rejected by the Court below without giving any number to itonly on the ground that the petition for granting divorce secondtime cannot be maintained as already the divorce was granted earlier to the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.89 of 2001 on merits, andtherefore, there cannot be any divorce second time.
However, during the course of hearing the appeal, thelearned counsel on either side submitted that the said observationof the Court below was not correct and in fact, the saidH.M.O.P.No.89 of 2001 was dismissed by the Court below byorder dated 05-09-2003, against which C.M.A.No.487 of 2008 wasfiled, which was withdrawn later.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the casesand having heard the learned counsel on either side, we are of theconsidered view that the very approach of the Court below inrejecting the petition is not justifiable as the said objection cannotbe upheld at the numbering stage without going into correctnessthereof and without verification. The factum of dismissal of theearlier petition is not denied by the respondents. Even otherwisethe record speaks for itself. Therefore, interest of justice would besub-served if the matter is remitted back to the Court below forprocessing the case and number and dispose of the same onmerits in accordance with law after notice and due opportunities.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and set aside the ordersdated 07-02-2009 rejecting the application and remitted the matterto the Court below for processing the number, if otherwise in orderand for dispose of the same in accordance with law after givingevery reasonable opportunity to both parties to raise all theirobjections, which they are entitled under the law.
__________________
B.PRAKASH RAO, J
_____________________
G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J
Date: 29-12-2009Ksn