Telangana High Court
FCA/459/2013 of Basetty Rajyalaxmi Vs Basetty Naveen Kumar on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL F.C.A.No.459 of 2013 JUDGMENT: - (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 2004. The respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.86 of
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYandTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWALF.C.A.No.459 of 2013
JUDGMENT:- (Per the Hon’ble Sri JusticeL. Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage tookplace in the year 2004. The respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.86 of 2010 inthe Family Court, Warangal, against the appellant for divorce underSection 13(1)(ib) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘theAct’). An ex parte decree was passed on 30.05.2012.
On her part, the appellant filed O.P.No.872 of 2013 in theFamily Court, Hyderabad, for divorce against the respondent underSection 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Act. It is stated that the appellant came toknow about the decree in F.C.O.P.No.86 of 2010 only when therespondent appeared before the Family Court, Hyderabad, inconnection with O.P.No.872 of 2013 and stated the factum of the exparte decree. The appellant further contended that she was not servedwith any notice or summons in O.P.No.86 of 2010.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also thelearned counsel for the respondent.
This is a strange case where the appellant on the one hand andthe respondent on the other wanted divorce from each other, but ondifferent grounds. The respondent initiated proceedings a bit earlierand the same ended in ex parte decree. The appellant asserts thatshe was not served with any summons in F.C.O.P.No.86 of 2010. Animportant matter pertaining to the matrimony of the parties cannot bepermitted to be dealt with in such a casual manner. No doubt, the O.Pfiled by the appellant is pending before the Family Court, Hyderabad. The respondent shall pursue his remedies before the concernedCourt.
Hence, we allow the appeal and set aside the decree dated30.05.2012 passed by the Family Court, Warangal, in F.C.O.P.No.86
of 2010. The O.P shall stand transferred to the Family Court,Hyderabad, and it shall be heard along with O.P.No.872 of 2013.There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this appeal shall standdisposed of.
__________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Date: 30.12.2013
__________________________
M.S.K.JAISWAL, J
va
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYand THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
va
F.C.A.No.459 of 2013 (common order of the Bench delivered the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Date: 30.12.2013