Telangana High Court
FCA/360/2012 of Smt Pallapu Vijaya Kumari Vs Pallapu Venkata Ramana on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL F.C.A.Nos.360 of 2012 and 50 of 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT: - (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 28.04.1995. They were blessed
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.Nos.360 of 2012 and 50 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per the Hon’ble Sri JusticeL. Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage tookplace on 28.04.1995. They were blessed with a son, named RaviKishore and a daughter, Nirmala Rani. The respondent filedO.P.No.141 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, fordivorce against the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of theHindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) on the grounds of crueltyand desertion. The appellant, on the other hand, filed O.P.No.158 of2003 in the same Court under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Through acommon order dated 29.12.2006, the trial Court allowed O.P.No.141 of2003 and dismissed O.P.No.158 of 2003. Hence, these two appealsunder Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
During the pendency of the appeals, the respondent died.
A death certificate bearing No.0121667 issued by the GreaterVisakhaptnam Municipal Corporation certifying that the respondentdied on 31.08.2013 and the death was registered on 05.09.2013, isenclosed.
A perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court mostly wasguided by the facts that the parties are living separately and themarriage has broken down irretrievably.
This is a typical case in which the son as well as the daughterdeposed in favour of their mother and categorically stated that theirfather-the respondent herein used to abuse and harass the appellantherein. The trial Court was mostly guided by the fact that the partiesare living separately and filing of a complaint under Section 498-AI.P.C by itself would constitute cruelty. We are not at all impressed bythat. When both the children of the parties have stated that it is the husband, who used to ill treat and abuse the appellant, she cannot beexpected to live in the same house. The respondent has created anatmosphere where the appellant cannot live with him and that,however, was treated as desertion on the part of the appellant.
For all practical purposes, the decree obtained by therespondent became infructuous and on merits also, we do not find anybasis. Various benefits that accrue to the legal heirs of the respondentcannot be denied on the strength of the decree of divorce.
Hence, F.C.A.No.50 of 2013 is allowed and the decree dated29.12.2006 passed by the trial Court in O.P.No.141 of 2013 is setaside. F.C.A.No.360 of 2012 has become infructuous and it isaccordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in these appeals shall standdisposed of.
__________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Date: 30.12.2013
__________________________
M.S.K.JAISWAL, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYand vaTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
va
F.C.A.Nos.360 of 2012 and 50 of 2013(common order of the Bench delivered the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Date: 30.12.2013