CRP/2831/2022 of Gundrath Thirumalesh Vs Smt. Neelagiri Mamatha on 30 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABADAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESEN T

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2831 OF 2022

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia against the orderdated 23-11-2022 in O.P. No. 1709 of 2022 on the file of the Court of theJudge, I Additional Family Court, City Civll Court, at Hyderabad Between Gundrath Thirumalesh, S/o,G Poshetty, Age 28 years, Occ. Software Engineer,Presently residing at 57, East Nicholai Street, Hicksville, New York 11081, USA Rep. byhis sister as Power of Attorney holder Ms. Gundrath Ruchitha, D/o. G. Poshetty, Age 23years, Occ. lT Engineer, R/o H No 14-71191511, Vinayak Nagar, Balkonda, BalkondalVIandal, Nizamabad District-50321 7

...PETITIONER/ Petitioner No. 1

AND

Smt. Neelagiri Mamatha, Wo. Gundrath Thirumalesh, D/o Ranrdas, Age 28 years,Occ. House Hold, R/o. H.No. 7-1-101, Ameerpet, HyderabadOcc. House Hold, R/o. H.No. 7-1-101, Ameerpet, Hyderabad RESPONDENT/ Petitioner No.2

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to grant exemptionfrom application of rules as per the Notification No.3, dated 29.10.2020 to examine thePetitioner No.1 in FCOP No. 170912022 on the file of Judge, I Additional Family Court, CityCivil Court, at Hyderabad in the interest of [justice.]

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P.V. SUBRAMANYAM

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA

, r The Court [made ]the following: ORDER

I

I

THE HON'BI E SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHIVAE:A REDDYCIVIL ?EVISION PETITION NO.283 1 OF 202:2ORDER

This ci [.il ]rt:vision petition is filed un(ler Ar li.:1e 227 oftl-re Constitu [ion of India assailing the do,:kt'l pr:rce edingsdated 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.B64 of 2022 in F.C.(, I).Nc.1709of 2022 on tl re file of the learned Judge, I Additi,;r-al FamilvCourt, Citl' [( ]ivil Courts at Hyderabad

2. T ris application in I.A.No.864 of 20i',2 n,as filedunder Sectic n 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for [,;l-rort ]['CPC')]s'ith a pral'e'1o examine the petitioner No.1 thrrrLgh S(vpeor anv u'eb application in the above F.Cl.O.P.l'l t.1709 ol20'22 to recr rcl and mark the documents in su1r1:ort. of hisevidence anrl to pass such other order. Be it slatt:d thatF.C.O.P.No.17O9 of 2022 is filed under Sectirrrr l3(B) ofHindu Marr age Act (for short 'HM Act') frr rlir;s rlution ofthe marriz gr: with mutual consen:.Pet-itionerNo.1/husbarrcl is working as a Software Engirt:t;r :n NewYork, Unitec Stzrtes of America (for short 'USA ) and he isbeing repres:nted by his General Power cf Attor:re1' (GPA)Holder. As such, the application in I.A.No.B64 ol 20'22 wasfiled for rec( rding his consent or marking, an-y rlocuments',n [ith ][the ][ht ][lp ][of ][Skype ][or ][any ][other ]',veb [rpplication.]

Learned Judge, I Additional Family Court, City CivilCourts, Hyderabad on 23.11.2022 has passed the followingorder:Courts, Hyderabad on 23.11.2022 has passed the followingorder:

'Heard the petitioner as a GPA Holder asone of the Petitioner is at abroad, this petition isallowed, subject to following Video ConferenceGuidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court."

3. This order is assailed by the revision petitioneralleging that he is in New York and in view of difference ofTime Zones it is not possible for him to secure the presenceof the Coordinator ald to approach the Consulate.Accordingly, requested to relax the relevant VideoConferencing Guidelines.

Heard learned counsei for the revision

4.

petitioner. l,earned counsel for .the respondent is alsopresent. I have given my anxious consideration to thesubmissions made by learned counsel on both sides, Rule18 of Video Conferencing Guidelines of the High Court andthe order impugned.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the parties havefiled divorce O.P. under Section 13(B) of HM Act for

dissolution ol their marriage with mutual c,)nser [r- ]an,l thatthe petitir>ne [- ]No.1/husbandIS working as i. SoitwareEngineer- llt'lcu' [York, ][USA ][and ][he ][is ][beLng r,rpre,.rented]through his [( ]PA. It is also an undisputed fact trLrrt cluringthe tin're o[ Cr urt proceedings held in India the tine in USArn i11 be ar oLr rcl rnidnight and it is not possib L,-' for anyperson to li r<l a Coordinator at that time and theConsulat e d, [,e ]s not u,ork during night timr s. It iscategoric:1 l.r' ;tated in the Video Conferen,:ing lir.ridelinesthat the [,,'iclct ]<:orLferencing cannot be done at th€ house ofthe petitione [- ]ald the parties have to app [-c,ach ]theConsulate at the appointed time, which will be fixed afterconsultal ion [r ].,it.h the Consulate.

'1-b 6. e|efore, in that view of the m:rtter, o;r overallconsideration rrf the facts of the dase, I anr o[ theconsidercd op inion that in vievv of difference in ['lirrre ]Zonebetu,een [r-rcli. L ald USA it would be impossibl,: for theCourts in Ind ia to lunction during the Consulatr: workinghours in LISA tLs it would be midnight in lhis country bythat time. As such, the order impugned datecl 2]; l1 2022in I.A.No.864 o1' 2022 in F.C.O.P.No.|7O9 of 2O2i'. on the 'l I

file of the learned Judge, i Additional Farnily Court, CityCivil Courts at HyderabadIS hereby modilied and thelearned Judge, I Additional Family Court is directed toproceed further, interact with the petitioner in the absenceof Coordinator and the petitioner shall make everyendeavour to assist the Court as and when directed toascertain mutuai consent for divorce and shali not takeany other assignment or engagement during the relevarttime and he shall not seek frivolous or unnecessaryadj ournments.

7 . With the above observations the civil revrsronpetition is allowed order impugned dated 23.71.2022 inI.A.No.864 of 2022 in F.C.O.P.No.l7O9 of 2022 on the fileof the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court, City CivilCourts at Hyderabad is modified to the extent indicatedabove.

However, in the circumstances of the case, thereshall be no order as to the costs. Misceilaneousapplications, if any pending,shall stands closed.SD/.K. KAVITHA ,ASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//iSECTION-OFFICER

To,

't. The Judge, I Additional fg-iry 9.o'+, 9'Iy,9ivil [Court' ][at ][Hyderabad]i [' ]onu cc to [-sRi. ][P.v. ][SUBRA|\4ANYAM ][, ][Advocate ][[oPUc]]i [' ]onu cc to [-sRi. ][P.v. ][SUBRA|\4ANYAM ][, ][Advocate ][[oPUc]]

3. One cc [to ][sRl. ][PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate ][IoPUC]]

4. Two [CD ][CoPies]

J

II

I

HIGH COUFITAVRJDATED:301121?A22

ORDERCRP.No.29ii1 )1'2022

;.1:ALLOWING THf, CRP \\ ITHOIIT COSTS(_7

6@.rI

., :' '.,)-' [)-:t']