Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT392
ORDERI. Panduranga Rao, J.1. The Original Petition has came up for consideration of making the decree nisi absolute by virtue of the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in O.S. Appeal No. 5 of 1993.2. O.P. No. 3 of 1992 is filed by the wife seeking a decree for the nullity of her marriage with the respondent which has taken place on 6-6-1991 at Hyderabad. An ex parte decree dated 25-9-1992 was passed by me under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 declaring that the marriage between the petitioner with the respondent performed on 6-6-1991 is null and void.3. Subsequent to passing of the above decree, the respondent herein filed Application No. 521 of 1992 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. That petition was dismissed on 4-2-1993. It is stated that challenging the order in Application No. 521 of 1992, the respondent herein filed O.S. Appeal No. 2 of 1993, but he did n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)600; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)283; 2009CriLJ511
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This criminal revision case is filed by the wife and children of the respondent-husband against the order dated 6-7-1999 of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati in Criminal Revision Petition No. 35 of 1999 which was preferred against the order dated 3-3-1999 in M.C. No. 7 of 1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- each. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent-husband and their marriage took place about five years prior to the filing of the application. Petitioners 2 and 3 born out of the above said wedlock. Apart from gold ornaments, Rs. 10,000/- was also paid to the respondent-husband towards his clothing etc., at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the first petitioner and respondent-husband lived happily...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1956(1)ALT734; 1956(2)AndhWR853; AIR1957AP424
( 1 ) THE Order of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice: this appeal raises an important point in the disposal of matrimonial causes. The appellant was the wife of the respondent. They were married in the year 1942. On 10-2-1951, the respondent filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, under Section 5 (1) and (2) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949-hereinafter referred to as the Act) to dissolve his marriage with the appellant. On 3rd April 1952 the learned Subordinate Judge made a decree dissolving the marriage. The appellant preferred an appeal against that decree to the High Court of judicature, Madras and it has subsequently been transferred to this Court. Pending the appeal, the respondent died. The question is whether the appeal alone abated leaving the decree intact or whether the petition itself abated with the result that the decree also was vacated. Mr. C. V. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL FCA No.222 of 2011 28-01-2014 Kukatlapalli Meri Rani... Appellant Kukatlapalli Paul Prakash...Respondent Counsel for petitioner: Sri B. Devanand. Counsel for respondents: Sri Srinivas Rao Ravulapati HEAD NOTE: ?.CASES REFERRED :1. (2014) 1 SCC2252. AIR1990Ker.262 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL FCA. No.222 of 2011 And FCA. No.47 of 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) These two appeals are filed against a common order dt. 07.07.2011 passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur in DOP Nos. 66 & 98 of 2009.2. The relevant facts are as under: The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 12.09.1995 at Brodipet, Guntur, according to the Christian customs and rites. The respondent filed DOP No.66 of 2009 under Sec.10(1)(vii)(ix) and 19(3) of Divorce Act (for short 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD821; 2005(4)ALT677; II(2005)DMC707
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.1. The appellant is the husband. Though his O.P. No. 246 of 2000 filed under Section 13(1(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 23.9.2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, he filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the finding that he is impotent for leading conjugal life.2. It is an unfortunate and peculiar case where the parties are fighting with each other to bring quietus to their marital status as husband and wife. Though there is a consensus between the spouses to bring an end to their marital status, but the ground on which they seek divorce is different. The appellant-husband wants divorce under Section 13(1(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of mental cruelty; whereas the respondent- wife is seeking a declaration that the marriage between them is null and void in view of the fact that the appellant-husband is impotent.3. In view of the sensitiveness involved in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD130
ORDER1. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity). She prays this Court to transfer the original petition being O.P. No. 388 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad ('Family Court, Hyderabad', for brevity) to the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada ('Family Court, Vijayawada' for brevity). Be it noted that the said O.P. was filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for brevity) seeking decree to annul and dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.2. The necessary facts in brief are as follows. The petitioner is wife of respondent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 13.10.1995 at Gopalapuram village, West Godavari District. After that, the petitioner and the respondent admittedly set up their matrimonial home in Hyderabad. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent ill-treate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.7063 of 2008 are accused 1 to 3 in C.C. No.48 of 2008 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Woman Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar women police station filed the charge-sheet in the said case alleging that P. Krishna Reddy and P. Kalavathi are the parents of Saritha, the 1st respondent in Criminal Petition No.7063 of 2008. Saritha was married to the 1st accused on 27-08-2005 and on the same day the 1st accused and Saritha left for the United States of America, as Saritha had to report at West Virginia University on 29-08-2005. Soon after arriving at the United States of America, the 1st accused demanded Saritha for money and took away 35 tulas of gold from her. The parents of Saritha visited the United States of America from 12-10-2005 to 07-11-2005 and still the 1st accused harassed Saritha physically and mentally and threatened her and her parents. Saritha gave ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7063 of 2008 and 2539 o29. 02/2012 A. Ashok Vardhan Reddy and others Smt. P. Savitha and another COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT: Sri P. Krishna Reddy ^COUNSEL FOR 2ND RESPONDENT: -- Crl.P. No.2539 of 2009: A. Ashok Vardhan Reddy and others ... Petitioners State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri Sharad Sanghi COUNSEL FOR 1ST RESPONDENT: -- COUNSEL FOR 2ND RESPONDENT: Sri P. Krishna Reddy CITATIONS:1. 1992 (3) ALT 46.2. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 300 (D.B.) (A.P.) 3. 2008 (TLS) 1227198 4. 2008(2) Crimes 235 (M.P.) 5. 2006 (TLS6. 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 155 (AP) 7. 2011 (2) MLJ (Cri8. AIR 199.SC 140.9. 2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 689 (AP) 10. 2007 Crl.L.J.3361 = 2007(2) ALD (Crl.11. AIR 200.SC 89.12. AIR 199.SC 184.13. 2009(1) ALT (Crl.) 285 (A.P.) 14. 2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 1 (AP) 15. 2010 (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD322; 2006(5)ALT762
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri A, Veem Swamy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Kunareddy Anji Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.2. This revision petition is filed as against an order dated 23-9-2005 made in LA. No. 944 of 2005 in O.P. No. 104 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent.3. This is a matrimonial dispute. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as wife and husband only.4. The wife filed O.P. No. 104 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku praying for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of husband being of unsound mind and sexually impotent and also made several elaborate allegations. The husband, who is the respondent in the main O.P. denied those allegations. A specific stand was taken in Para 13 of the counter that she had some trouble in connection with her uterus even before the marriage and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985AP1
ORDER1. This revision petition is against the order appointing a Commissioner-Doctor preferably Civil Surgeon rank and M.D. for scientific investigation of the petitioner in the main O.P. to know whether he is impotent or not and whether he is able to consummate the marriage. O.P.93/1979 was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights the contention of the wife is that the husband is impotent and during the pendency of the original petition the wife filed an interlocutory application for the appointment of a Commissioner. In the counter-affidavit the allegation of impotency is denied and it is stated that the question of examination by competent Doctor does not arise. The Court below held that if the respondent is not suffering from any defect no harm would be caused to him if he is sent for medical examination and in this view the application is allowed. 2. In Birendra Kumar v. Hemalata Biswas, AIR 1921 Cal 459 a suit by husband under the Indian Divorce Act to declare the ...
Tag this Judgment!