Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD24; 2005(4)ALT6
A. Gopal Reddy, J.1. When the vacate petition is taken up for hearing both the parties requested to dispose of the main appeal. At their request, CMA itself is taken up for hearing. Heard both sides.2. The unsuccessful petitioner in the Court below preferred this CMA against the order and decree dated 6-10-2004 passed in OP No. 373 of 2001 by the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.3. The relevant facts shorn of details for disposal of appeal lies in a narrow compass and briefly stated as under:4. The petitioner is undisputedly first wife of the deceased Mylavardpu Rayamallu who was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani till his death on 21-12-1997. He left behind the appellant/petitioner and his mother, who died on 8-7-2001. On the death of Rayamallu, appellant/petitioner approached the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act for payment of gratuity amount in Claim Application No. 20/ 99 and the same was adjudicated in favour of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD158; 1998(2)ALT569
ORDERC.V.N. Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the wife questioning the decree of annulment of marriage granted by the lower court under Section 12(1) (c) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the application filed by the respondent-husband. The respondent filed the application for annulment of marriage on the ground that the appellant was suffering from a disease known as 'Hyper Prolactinemia with Galloctorrhea' in medical parlance with symptoms like continuous lactation of milk from her breasts and irregular menstruation due to which she is incapable of bearing children and that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud and wilful suppression of the said facts.2. The respondent is an Engineer employed in the Thermal Power Station at Paloncha in Khammam District. The case of the respondent as set out in the Original Petition filed by him and as it appears from his evidence as PW1 is as follows :The marriage of the respondent with the appellant took place on 8-2-1989 at G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985AP237
P. Chennakesav Reddi, Acg.C.J. 1. This is a case in which the petitioner, G.S. Dhanamani, prays for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, G.V.Banerjee, on the grounds of cruelty and bestiality, under S. 10 of the Divorce Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The respondent, in his counter affidavit, stated that he has no objection for divorce subject to the condition that the petitioner gives up all her rights in his properties and also the right of maintenance against him. The respondent did not also examine himself as a witness of the petitioner, the learned 3rd Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam found that the respondent was guilty of bestiality and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce. Accordingly, he granted a decree as prayed for by the petitioner subject to confirmation by the High Court. 2. In this reference for confirmation, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that both the parties are not Christians, that the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD24; I(2006)DMC622
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 21-2-2005 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku in I.A. No. 1774 of 2004 in O.P. No. 59 of 2004.2. The above O.P. was filed by the respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner, seeking divorce. The Court below, on 17-9-2004 allowed the O.P. granting ex parte decree of divorce by nullifying the marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 1774 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 53 days in filling a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree of divorce. It is stated that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 20-4-2004 and the O.P. for divorce was filed in June, 2004 itself and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances for filing the petition for divorce, the Court should not have entertained the O.P. and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.7 OF201402-01-2014 K.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Chandra Sekharam, aged about 64 yeaRs.Retired Lecturer, Residing at 18/646, Yasin Sahib Street, Near Z.P.Office, Nellore, PSR Nellore District ...Appellant K. Saileswari, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 58 yeaRs.House wife, D.No.23/64, Mulapet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.Respondent Counsel for the Appellant :Sr.O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sr.V. Narayana Reddy : : ?.Citations: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.7 OF2014JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sr.Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.240 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Nellore, is the appellant. He filed the O.P.against the respondent for divorce under Section 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, 'the Act').The trial Court dismissed the O.P.through order, dated 16.08.2013. Hen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP6
Sheth, J.1. The petitioner - husband filed O. P. No. 47 of 1965 against the respondent - wife for judicial separation on the ground that the respondent wife had any reasonable cause deserted him. It was decided on 2nd Dec. 1966 and the decree for judicial separation was passed. Two years thereafter elapsed and on 9-12-1968 the present petition was filed by the petitioner husband for divorce. There was no resumption of cohabitation between the parties. The learned trial Judge allowed the petition and granted to the petitioner husband the decree for divorce. In this petition the respondent - wife filed an interlocutory application praying for maintenance under S. 25(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That claim made by the respondent - wife was in view of her conduct, rejected by the learned trial Judge. 2. It is that decree which is challenged by the respondent - wife in this appeal. Mr. Kulkarni, who appears for the wife, has contended that she has made attempts at resumption of cohab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976AP77
Sambasiva Rao, Ag. C.J.1. Though the judgment of Venkatrama Sastry J., which is sought to be appealed against, is an affirming one. Sri P. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants raises many points in support of the appeal.2. Firstly, he argues that the plaintiff-respondent who filed the suit for partition as the heir of her husband, had lost the status of wife, and so, she could not claim a share. That is on the ground that on 28th day of July, 1962, a decree for judicial separation was passed at the instance of the husband against the respondent. She was provided maintenance at the rate of Rs.200 per month. In execution of this decree for maintenance, she even applied for arrest of the husband. Without anything more happening, he died in the year 1967 and she filed the suit for partition in 1968. Sri Rama Rao maintains that all the requirements of sub-section (1-A) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) have existed in this case, since there was a decree for j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP308
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1.Akuthota Lingaiah filed O. P. No. 55 of 1961 in the Court of the District Judge, Warangal, praying for a decree of divorce against his wedded wife, the first respondent, by dissolution of marriage, for damages of Rs. 500/- against the second respondent and for custody of his male child, Basva Raju, aged about three years after removing the child from the custody of R-1. Respondents 1 and 2 contested tho petition after filing separate counters. Both sides let in evidence. The learned District Judge awarded a decree of divorce with costs which were recoverable from both the respondents. He also directed the second respondent to pay Rs. 500/- as damages and directed the child, iiasva Raju, to be put in the custody of the petitioner. R-2 filed C.M.A. No. 107 of 1962 and R-1 filed C. M. A. No. 110 of 1962 against the order of the lower Court. Both the appeals, being against a common judgment, were heard together by common consent.2. For the sake of convenience, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988AP191
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.1. This reference is under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act; and relates to the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granted by the court below on 25-11-1985 in OP.NO. 150 of 1985. 2. The petitioner seeking the dissolution of marriage is the husband; and the respondent, the wife. They professed the Christian religion; and the marriage between them is stated to have been solemnized according to their religious customs and rites on 26-11-1981 within the jurisdiction of the Court below, as evidenced by Ex.A.1, extract from the Register of Marriages. The petitioner as P.W. 1 deposed that two years after his marriage, he noticed a change in the behaviour of the respondent and he began to suspect her character which was not found to be fair. P.W. 2 a neighbour who was examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1,stated in his evidence as follows: 'I know the petitioner and respondent having married in the year 1981. They are my neigh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(3)ALD542; 1999(2)ALT85
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Heard, CMP No.26305 of 1998, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, is allowed.2. Both the parties filed compromise petition in CMP No.1743 of 1999 requesting the Court to grant decree of divorce by consent. Few facts that are necessary fordisposing of this appeal arc, Paresh Shah and Vyjayantimala were married on 16-4-1994 as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 1954. They set up their marital home at H.No.7112/26, Cement Building, Kalasiguda, Secundcrabad, along with the parents and other family members of the appellant-husband. According to the respondent-wife, she married the appellant against her wish and under compulsion of her parents. The marriage between the parties is an arranged one. The respondent stated that she was earlier engaged to a better person, and though she spent her time with that gentleman in Gujarat, she had cancelled the engagement. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to carry out the marital obligations, an...
Tag this Judgment!