Gullipalli Srinivas Vs. Gullipalli Pydithalli

Gullipalli Srinivas vs Gullipalli Pydithalli

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Apr 20, 1998

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/438593

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/438593
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Motilal B. Naik and;J. Chalameswar, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 20, 1998
Case Number: AAO No. 1242 of 1994
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Family - dissolution of marriage - Sections 13 and 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - appeal against dismissal of divorce petition on ground of desertion -wife failed to make appearance before Court - husband was unable to prove that wife had deserted him only to put end to marital relationship - wife had withdraw...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 13(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gullipalli Srinivas

Advocate Mrs. D.S.R. Krishna, Adv.

Respondent

Gullipalli Pydithalli

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 13(1)
Reported In: 1998(4)ALD143; 1998(4)ALT1; II(1998)DMC438

Excerpt

.....to prove that wife had deserted him only to put end to marital relationship - wife had withdrawn from society of husband because of demand of rs. 16000 - even if matter is uncontested by other party court has to see whether petitioner has satisfactorily proved grounds alleged against other spouse - appeal dismissed as wife cannot held to be responsible for keeping away from his society. - a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. the publication of a copy of amendment and notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights. if legislature thought that publication of a general notice in form viii will be sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written..........act.7. under section 13(1)(a) of the hindu marriage act, the law requires that even if the matter is uncontested by the other party, there must be such material before the court on which basis, the court shall satisfy itself and come to such conclusion that the party who has sought dissolution of marriage has satisfied the ingredients. section 13(1)(a) further says that the courts are also to examine whether the party who comes forward seeking dissolution is in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrongs.8. applying the test laid down in the provision, the courts are to examine, even ifthe matter is uncontested, whether the petitioner has satisfactorily proved the grounds alleged against the other spouse and whether the party is trying to take advantage of his own mistakes.9. as discussed, through the evidence of pw1 we are unable to reach to such a conclusion that the wife has deserted the husband only to put an end to marital relationship. on the contrary, what we find from the decision of the trial court is that under ex.a2 notice the husband has demanded rs.16,000/- from the wife. the lower court probably persuaded to come to a conclusion that as the husband had demanded rs.l6,00/-from the wife under ex.a2, she has reasons to withdraw from the society of the husband. that being the finding of the court, we are unable to appreciate the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.10. as discussed above, we do not see any merits in the submission made on behalf of the appellant and the appeal has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Motilal B. Naik, J

1. Husband is the appellant before us, who is aggrieved against the order of the lower Court in OP No.12 of 1994 dated 25-3-1994.

2. The appellant/husband had filed the said OP on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable grounds. Before the lower Court it was alleged by the appellant/husband that his marriage with the respondent took place on 25-5-1991 at Rajahmundry, that they lived as wife and husband for about seven months without any hiccups and that thereafter she went away to her parents house and stayed back with her parents without any reasons. On this allegation the petition was laid beforethe lower Court seeking divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of desertion.

3. The wife, though notice was served on her, failed to make her appearance before the Court and was set ex parte on 7-3-1994. The appellant/petitioner was examined on 21-3-1994 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on his behalf. The lower Court on the basis of Ex.A2 notice issued by the appellant requiring the wife to settle Rs. 16,000/- as promised by her parents during the period of marriage, held that it is the appellant alone who is responsible for the wife's leaving his society as he was demanding Rs. 16,000/- to be paid to him and, therefore, it held that wife cannot be held to be responsible for keeping away from his society and dismissed the application. This is the decision which is challenged before us.

4. Smt. Krishna, learned Counsel for the appellant/husband contended that the wife, though stayed for a period of seven months with the husband, has deserted him with the sole intention of brining an end to marital tie and further contended that the lower Court, without examining that aspect, has erroneously held that the cause of wife's withdrawal is demand of Rs.16,000/- through Ex.A2. Learned Counsel further contended that the wife has been staying away from the society of the husband for several years though their marriage was performed in the year 1991. As required under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act with regard to seeking divorce on the ground of desertion, if two years period of separation preceding filing of the application is satisfied, either of the spouse is entitled to seek a divorce on the ground of desertion. Learned Counsel stated that OP No. 12 of 1994 was filed in the year 1994 and the requirement provided under Section 13(1)(ib) has been satisfied by the husband; the lower Court ought to have seen that when the requirement is fulfilled, a decree of divorce could have been granted.

5. Though notices in the appeal have been served on the respondent/wife, neithershe has appeared before us nor she is being represented by anybody. We, therefore, have taken up the matter for consideration on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/husband, while perusing the decision of the lower Court.

6. When desertion is pleaded as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the party who seeks dissolution has to necessarily satisfy the two ingredients contemplated under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, that is to say, the petitioner has to first of all satisfy that the wife has left his society for no fault of him and secondly, that leaving of the wife from the society of the husband is only to put, an end to the marital life. In this case, the appellant has examined himself as PW1. The deposition placed before us failed to disclose that the husband has proved the two facets of the requirement contemplated under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

7. Under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the law requires that even if the matter is uncontested by the other party, there must be such material before the Court on which basis, the Court shall satisfy itself and come to such conclusion that the party who has sought dissolution of marriage has satisfied the ingredients. Section 13(1)(A) further says that the Courts are also to examine whether the party who comes forward seeking dissolution is in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrongs.

8. Applying the test laid down in the provision, the Courts are to examine, even ifthe matter is uncontested, whether the petitioner has satisfactorily proved the grounds alleged against the other spouse and whether the party is trying to take advantage of his own mistakes.

9. As discussed, through the evidence of PW1 we are unable to reach to such a conclusion that the wife has deserted the husband only to put an end to marital relationship. On the contrary, what we find from the decision of the trial Court is that under Ex.A2 notice the husband has demanded Rs.16,000/- from the wife. The lower Court probably persuaded to come to a conclusion that as the husband had demanded Rs.l6,00/-from the wife under Ex.A2, she has reasons to withdraw from the society of the husband. That being the finding of the Court, we are unable to appreciate the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant.

10. As discussed above, we do not see any merits in the submission made on behalf of the appellant and the appeal has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1998 Same Parties Gullipalli Srinivas vs Gullipalli Pydithalli Same Subject Family Same Judge Motilal B. Naik and;J. Chalameswar, JJ. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 13(1)

Family