Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : IYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO, V.BHASKARA RAO
M.Shakuntala - Appellant
Versus
M.Shivaraj - Respondent
Decided On : 04-21-92
REVIEW PETITION - DIVORCE - NEW EVIDENCE - RE-UNION - CONDONATION OF DESERTION - REVIEW OF JUDGMENT - [ORDER XLVII RULE 1 CPC] - The court can review a judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC if new evidence is discovered that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. In this case, the wife was prevented by the husband from appearing in court during the appeal, and the court found that this was a sufficient reason to receive the evidence in the review petition. The court also found that the husband had condoned the desertion by requesting the wife to come and live with him after the decree of divorce, and that they had lived together for some time and had a child together. This was a strong circumstance to review the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a review petition to challenge a judgment of the High Court that had dismissed her appeal against a decree of divorce granted to her husband on the ground of desertion. The wife claimed that after the appeal was admitted by the High Court, she and her husband had reunited and lived together for some time, and that a child was born to them during that period. She also alleged that her husband had refused to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity of the child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had been prevented by the husband from appearing in court during the appeal, and that this was a sufficient reason to receive the evidence in the review petition. The court also found that the husband had condoned the desertion by requesting the wife to come and live with him after the decree of divorce, and that they had lived together for some time and had a child together. This was a strong circumstance to review the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the court can review a judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC if new evidence is discovered that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. 2. Whether the husband had condoned the desertion by requesting the wife to come and live with him after the decree of divorce, and that they had lived together for some time and had a child together.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it can review a judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC if new evidence is discovered that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. In this case, the wife was prevented by the husband from appearing in court during the appeal, and the court found that this was a sufficient reason to receive the evidence in the review petition. 2. The court also found that the husband had condoned the desertion by requesting the wife to come and live with him after the decree of divorce, and that they had lived together for some time and had a child together. This was a strong circumstance to review the judgment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the review petition and set aside the judgment of the High Court that had dismissed the wife's appeal against the decree of divorce. The court also granted a decree of divorce to the wife.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed to review the Judgment and decree of this court dated 2-9-86 passed in the above appeal and to allow the same.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 28-4-1974 at the house of her husband in Chinthalabasthi, hyderabad. Thereafter they lived together happily for some time and a female child was born. Later on some differences arose. Therefore the husbaad filed op No 114/1977 on the file of the IV addl Judge City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife. The lower court after considering the entire material on record allowed the OP and granted a decree of divorce. Against that judgment the wife filed the appeal CMA No. 385 of 1981. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of K Amareswari J and one of us (Bhaskar Rao J ). When the appeal came up for hearing this Court directed the learned counsel to produce the parties in the Court with a view to bring in reconciliation if possible. Both the parties were not present and the counsel for both parties represented that they were not able to contact their parties. Therefore, this Court considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the wife.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the wife filed the present review petition stating that subsequent to passing of the decree for divorce by the lower court there was re-union between the petitioner and the respondent and they lived together as hus band and wife and a female child was also born to them on 20-10-1984, by name m Mahalakshmi in Vijayameri Hospital, hyderabad. When the appeal came up for hearing the respondent-husband advised the petitioner-wife that it is not necessary to be present before the Court as they have reconciled. So believing the advice of her husband, she did not attend the court and she did not evince any interest in the appeal. Therefore this court dismissed the appeal without her contesting the same. It is also stated that during the said period of re-union between the petitioner and the respondent a female child was also born to them on 20-10-84 named as Mabalaxmi. These allegations were disputed by the counsel for the husband. Therefore this court called for a finding from the trial court and both parties were permitted to file affidavits and adduce evidence in the lower court. In pursuance of the order of this court calling for a finding both parties appeared before the Court below and filed affidavits. The wife examined herself as RW 1 and also examined another witness as RW 2. The husband also appeared and examined himself as PW1. The wife filed 1a No 2787/89 in the lower court for appointment of the director or such other Officer of the centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology at Hyderabad for conducting blood test of the husband Shivraj and the disputed child Mahalaxmi and also of Smt Shakuntala herself to determine the paternity of the second child Mahalaxmi. She also filed IA No 2786/89 for a further direction that the husband should bear the expenses of that test as she is not in a position to bear the said expenditure. The lower court, after hearing both sides allowed bath I As by its common order dated 16-10-1989. Against the said common order the husband filed CRP Nos 446/90 and 445/90 in this court, but both these crps were dismissed in limine on 23-2-90. Thereafter the husband did not comply with the order dated 16-10-1989 of the lower court in IA Nos 2787/89 and 2786/ 89 and did not undergo the test. Thereafter he filed another 1a No 1314/90 to review the order in the above l As but the said review petition was dismissed by the lower court on 31-8-1990 on the ground that the order dated 16-10-1989 in IA nos 2786/89 and 2787/89 stood merged in the order of the High Court passed in crp Nos 445/90 and 446/90 The estimated expenditure for the test ordered ,in ia No 2787/89 would work out to Rs. 3,500/- and this
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.