Kandipati Ravi v. Kandipati Vijayalalitha

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FryDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. TUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1796, 7797,1798 and 1806 ot2016 Revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 22.03.2016 in I.A.Nos.452 ot 20J5, 8-1, 82, and 83 of 2016 in O.p.No. 8/2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil judge at Mahabubabad.

Between:

Kandipati Rarri, S/o. Gopaiah, aged about 38 years, occ: Employee in Gram Panchiyat, Dornakal village and Mandal, Warangal District. AND 'Petitioner in all CRPs'

Kandipati Vijayalalitha, W/o. Ravi, aged 35 years, occ: Household, R/o.Mahabubibad Village and Mandal, Warangal District'

...Respondent in all CRPs.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPM P. NO: 2269 OF 2016) in CRP No.1796 of 2076 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supPort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OP.No.8 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, pending disposal of the main CRP.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRP MP. NO: 2270 OF 201.6\ in CRP No.1797 of 20'16 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suPport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay o( all further proceedings in OP.No.8 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, pending disposal of the main CRP.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP. NO: 2272 OF 2016) in CRP No.1798 of 2015 \\

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suPPort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OP.No.8 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, pending disposal of the main CRP.

I.A. NO: 1OF 2016(CRPMP. NO: 2279 OF 2016) in CRP No.1806 of 20L6 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suPPort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OP.No.8 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, pending disposal of the main CRP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao. (In all CRPs.) Counsel for the Respondent: Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy. (In all CRPs.) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA C.R.P.Nos. 1796, L797, 1798 and 1806 of 2016 COMMON ORDER:

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the rev1s10n petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

2.

Challenge in these revision petitions is the common order rendered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, in I.A.No.452 of 2015, LA.No.81 of 2016, I.A.No.82 of 2016 and LA.No.B3 of 2016, in O.P.No'8 of 2002, dated 22,O3.2016.

3.

O.P.No.B of 2OO2 is filed seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce. The said petition was filed by the revision petitioner (hereinafter be referred as the "Husband"). In the said Original Petition, the wife moved four applications, the orders ofwhich are now under challenge.

/ \

Dr CSL.J C.R.P.No.1796 of20l6 and batch 4.

I.A.No.B3 of 2016 was moved seeking the Court to receive the documents that are filed, i.A.No.82 of 2016 is filed seeking the Court to re-open the case, I.A.No.81 of 2016 is filed seeking the Court to recall PWt/husband, and I.A.No.452 of 2015 is filed seeking the Court to recall the RWi/wife. By common order dated 22.03.2076, the Court allowed all the applications. Aggrieved by the said common order, the husband is before this Court. 5.

Learned counsel for the husband submits that the O.P. is of the year 2OO2 and after a lapse of more than 12 years, these applications are moved only to drag on the proceedings and there is neither any necessity nor any reason for moving those applications and, therefore, the said applications ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court, but it did .,oi do "o.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that while the marriage is in subsistence between t\e parties, the husband led adulterous iife and begot three sons through another woman and initially the wife could not gather sufficient material to prove the said fac\

Dr CSI-J C.R.P-No.l?96 of2016 and batch J however, thereafter through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, she could collect substantive proof that the three sons are the biological children of the husband and to establish the said fact before the Court, she has moved the applications and, therefore, an opportunity was given by the trial Court to do so.

7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the applications by the wife goes to show that the revision petitioner/husband begot three sons through a lady, by \I name Hymavathi during the pendency of the proceedings and to prove the said fact, she 'could collect sufficient documentary evidence and for exhibiting the said documents, she moved those applications. In what manner prejudice is caused to the husband is not made clear' When a serious allegation is made, which goes to the roots of the case, and when a party intends to establish genuineness of the said allegation, the Court has to afford an opportunity to do so. The same is done by the trial Court.

..\

\ Dr. CSL,J C.R.P.No.l796 of 2016 and batch 8.

This Court does not find any infirmity in the order rendered by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court holds that these revision petitions lack merits and deserve to be dismissed.

9 .

Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Interim order granted by this Court on 07.04.2016 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, miscelia_neous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

I ""3{#I1$,',il',*1t.P,f^',i /[RUE cow// qb SECTION OFFICER To, The Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. 9" 9! to SriNamavarapu Rajeswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Dr.Venkat Rbddy Donthi Reddy, AdvocatelOpUCl Two CD Copies One Spare Copy 1,.

2.

J.

4.

5.

]CK SB il \

HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210412022 HE SIA ,c ( a:'(- oo 07 JUL 20[ .L OrS23.TCi\Eq * COMMON ORDER C.R.P.Nos . 1796, 1797 , 1798 and 1806 of 2016 Dismissing the CRPs without costs.

()r (.y