Smt Vaddula Kalpana v. Sri. B.V. Ramakrishna Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1050 OF 2021 Petition under Section 1 15 of CPC aggrieved by the order dated 29.1 1.2019 in t.A,No.865 0f 2017 in FCOP.No.976 0f 2010 0n the file of the court of the Family Court, L.B. Nagar.

Between:

Smt. Vaddula Kalpana, W/o B.V Ramakrishna Reddy',aged about 41 years, Occ Senior Software Engineer r/o Wipro Technologies, Gachibowli, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/PETITIONEFYRESPONDENT AND Sri. B.V. Ramakrishna Reddv, S/o B.V. Subba Reddy' aged a!99L43 years, Occ Softwjte employee, Wells Firgo Centre, Divyasree Orion ( SEZ) Rayadurga' Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IA NO: 1 0F 2021 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to dispense the filing of the certified copy of the order and decree dt: 29.1 1.20'19 in l.A.No.B65 of 2017 in FCOP No.976 of 2010 and pass order or orders. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of the Judgment and decree dt: o1-06-2011 in oP No.976 of 2010 on the file of the Family court, Ranga Reddy District.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. V. KALYAN SINGH Counsel for the ResPondent:

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKEIi. REDDY CML REVISION PETITION No'1O5O ol'2021 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt.29.11.2019 in IA.No.865 of 2Ot7 in F(lOP No'976 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court at L'B'Nagar' Ranga Reddy . District, wherein and wl-ereby the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 2318 days in'filing petition to set aside the exparte decree dt.01.06.2011 passed in FCOP'No '9'76/2070' is dismissed.

Learned Counsel for petitioner su bmits that petitioner was residing in United States of America' as such, she has not received notice in FCOP'N':'976/2070; that immediately after coming to know of the exparte decree of divorce, she filed present apt)lication for condoning the delay; and that the Court below should have allowed the said petition by condoning ttre delay' Inthiscaseitistobeseenthatadmittt:dly,thereis enormouSdelayof23lBdaysinfilingpetitiortosetaSide the exparte decree dt.01.06'2011' The Cou't below has considered the said aspect and came to the conclusion that though the petitioner was aware of the divorce'

waited long period and filed the present petition with a delay of more than 6 years. The Court below by relying on the messages exchanged between the parties came to such conclusion. It is also not disputed that meanwhile, the respondent married for the second. time and begot two children out of his wedlock. The Court below also found fault with the conduct of thd petitioner in approaching the Court with enormous delay. It is also a fact that both the parties are software engineers and well educated and as such it is difficult to believe that petitioner is not aware of the divorce granted on 01,06.2011 and the impugned order also goes to show that even the petitioner also wanted to marry again and for that purpose she sought information from the respondent about the number of OP and the date of the decree, which goes to show that petitioner also wanted to marry and lead life.

In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not see any error warranting interference with the order of the trial Court in refusing to condone the enormous delay of 2318 days and no purpose would be served in allowing the said application as respondent already married for the second and begot two children.

,/ Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

'/ Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SD/. K. SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// q, SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court, L.B. Nagar at Ranga Reddy Distr ct.

2. One CC to Sri T. V. Kalyan Singh, Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD Copies . One Spare Copy br |) o \ ,M

HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812021 5TT\TE { \ :)or) \t4 N$tt$ .b .:/ A.

l( \:

'/ * DF3?,"5 a

ORDER

CRP.No.1050 of 2021 DISMISSING THE CRP 2\ B