CRP/1272/2020 of Dr. Ravi Sankar Erukulapati Vs Dr. Lakshmi Chirumamilla on 31 December 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1272 OF 2020

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the (DocketOrder) and delay in disposal of O.P.546 of 2019 (old No.1527 of 2014) on thefile of the Hon'ble Principal Judge, Family Court cum Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad.Order) and delay in disposal of O.P.546 of 2019 (old No.1527 of 2014) on thefile of the Hon'ble Principal Judge, Family Court cum Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Between:

Dr. Ravi Sankar Erukulapati, S/o Gopala Krishnaiah Erukulapati, Aged about 45years, Occ- Doctor, R/o. Flat No.205, Orchids, 'B' block, Vasantha Valley, Whiteyears, Occ- Doctor, R/o. Flat No.205, Orchids, 'B' block, Vasantha Valley, WhiteFields, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District - 500084. (Presentlyresiding at Villa 36, Aditya Edenwoods, Tellapur - 502032)residing at Villa 36, Aditya Edenwoods, Tellapur - 502032)

...PETITIONER/ Petitioner

AND

Dr. Lakshmi Chirumamilla, D/o C Ramachandra Rao, Aged 46 years, Occ-Doctor, Villa no.13, Vasantha Emerald Gardens, Near Madhapur Police Station,Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500033 ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

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 todirect the respondent to cooperate for early disposal of all the matters betweenthe parties OP 546 of 2019, OP 751 & 759 of 2012 & MQ 248 of 2012 on thefile of the Principal Judge, Family Court Cum Addl. Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad, by fixing a time frame' to undertake day to day [proceedings]being oldest and identified, for disposal of the same on merits at the earliestwithout any more delay .in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased todirect the respondent to cooperate for early disposal of all the matters betweenthe parties OP 546 of 2019, OP 751 & 759 of 2012 & MQ 248 of 2012 on thefile of the Principal Judge, Family Court Cum Addl. Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad, by fixing a time frame' to undertake day to day [proceedings]being oldest and identified, for disposal of the same on merits at the earliestwithout any more delay .

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ERANKI PHANI KUMAR

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY

The Court made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1272 of 2020ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri T.Bala MohanReddy, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This Revision is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to theCourt below for early disposal of O.P.No.546 of 2019 (Old Number1.257 of 2014).

3. It is not in dispute that in the said O.P., though application formaintenance were filed by respondent for her children and it ispending since 2012, trial in the O.P. commenced and the evidence onthe side ofpetitioner has been closed.

4, Thereafter the respondent filed the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 30-09-2020.

5. However, on account of Covid- 1 9 pandemic and certaininstructions issued by the High Cour1, the matter was adjoumed to 13-I 0-2020, 20 - I 0 -2020, 27 - 1 0 -2020 ; and on 2 7- 1 0-2020, the matter wasposted for respondent's evidence to 02-11-2020 making it clear thatno further time would be granted.

6. Subsequently, it was adjourned to 02-11-2020 and thereafter to10-11-2020. Between l0-11-2020 and 09-12-2020, the caseunderwent 5 more adjoumments, and ultimately, the Court belowrecorded that it is prepared to record the evidence of respondent

through video conference, but respondent is not cooperating, andadjoumed the matter to t5-r2-2020 for respondent,s evidence eitherphysically or through Video conference making it clear that no furthertime will be granted.adjoumed the matter to t5-r2-2020 for respondent,s evidence eitherphysically or through Video conference making it clear that no furthertime will be granted.

7. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, contendedthat respondent is emproyed as a consultant in NovA pulse IVFClinic Private Limited, Hyderabad, and that she being a Doctor andConsultant, she needs to adhere to all the norms and Covid_ 1 9guidelines laid down by National Centre for Disease Control,Govemment of India, Govemment of Telangana and Ministry ofHealth and Family Welfare and she is strictly following herprofessional duties and thereby refrained from any outsideenvironment in order to avoid the risk of infection of covid-r9 andspreaci thereof.

8. Prima facie I am of the opinion that this excuse raised byrespondent cannot be considered because there is no impediment forthe respondent to give evidence through video conference if therespondent is so concerned about spread of Covid_19 pandemic, thattoo when the State and Central Governments have lifted lock downand except organizations like Schools and some religious places,movement of people are no longer restricted by the State on accountof Covid-19 pandemic.

9. A further excuse given by respondent is that maintenanceapplication filed by respondent for herself and for children way back in2012 has been kept pending and that petitioner is only interested ingetting divorce from respondent, but is not interested in payingmaintenance.

10. In this regard, it is also stated by leamed counsel for petitionerthat respondent moved two new Revision petitions today for earlydisposal of maintenance I.A. and another I.A.

11. Nothing prevented the respondent from moving this Courtbetween 2Ol2 and, 2020 for early disposal of the said applicationseeking maintenance and when this matter is being taken up on 3'dadjoumment, these applications have come up now.

12. Be that as it may, even that reason assigned by respondentwould not be any impediment for the respondent to submit herself tocross-examination through video conference as offered by the Courtbelow in its proceedings dt.09-12-2020.

13. I may point out that the High Court had framed in exercise ofthe powers conferred on this Court under Articles 225 and 227 of theConstitution of India "Rules for Video conference for Courts in theState of Telangana", which have also been notified in the TelanganaGazette on29-10-2020.

14. Therefore when the Court below has such video conferencefacility and the respondent and her counsel can participate inrecording the evidence through such video conference, the excuse (

\

given by respondent about her inability to submit herself to cross_examination, cannot be countenanced.examination, cannot be countenanced.

15. Therefore, the respondent is directed to make herself availablefor cross-examination through video conference at a time and date tobe decided by the Court below within three (03) weeks and submitherself for cross-examination by the counser for petitioner. In defaultof the respondent cooperating in this regard, the Court below is atliberty to eschew her evidence and proceed further in the matter. Inany evident, the Court below shall decide the O.p. within two (02)months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order.

16, The Civil Revision petition is allowed with the abovedirections. No costs.

77. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shallstand closed.stand closed.

SdA M. MANJULAASSISTANTREGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To

1. The Principal Judge, Family Court cum Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRI ERANKI PHANI KUMAR, Advocate TOPUCI

3. One CC to SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

,f

HIGH COURT

MSRJ

DATED:31 11212020

ORDERCRP.No.1272 of 2020

ALLOWING THE CRPWITHOUT COSTS

I\c,

.11tls,AIt:oZo04 [JAN ][2021]tr).L**PAT