Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
K.S. Bhargavi alias K.S. Reddy Bhargavi – Appellant
Versus
K.S. Ugandhar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.765, 766 & 853 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P VASU SEKHAR
For the Respondent: G RAJESHWAR REDDY
Headnote:
Civil Revision Petition - Grant of divorce – Held, Court is unable to accept this contention. The petitioner, who is wife of respondent, and when matrimonial disputes are pending between them, they have to adduce evidence before Court for proper adjudcation of the dispute by Court. The relief sought by respondent to confront with RW.1 with regard to the conversation contained in the CD and with regard to the conversation of the Panchayat held at the petitioner’s house and to confront Wedding Invitation Card of petitioner and the respondent to confirm the cell number of the petitioner’s father, definitely, are useful for proper adjudication of the issue between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner, instead of allowing the respondent to proceed as directed by the trial Court, making an attempt to come in the way to prevent the respondent to place the evidence before the Court is illegal and unjustified - Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
C.R.P.No.765 of 2022:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 19-02-2020 in I.A.No.12 of 2020 in HMOP No.54 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
C.R.P.No.766 of 2022:
2) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 19-02-2020 in I.A.No.11 of 2020 in HMOP No.54 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
C.R.P.No.853 of 2022:
3) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.09.2020 in I.A.No.22 of 2020 in HMOP No.54 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
4) Since all the Revision Petitions are arise out of the same HMOP No.54 of 2017, this Court is inclined to pass common order.
5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
6) The Petitioner is the wife and the Respondent is Husband in HMOP No.54 of 2017 on the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
7) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed HMOP No.54 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for grant of divorce. The respondent filed three petitions vide I.A.Nos.11 of 2020, 12 of 2020 and 22 of 2020 to recall RW.1 & PW.1 and for summoning the witnesses respectively. The trial Court, on erroneous consideration of the facts, allowed the said petitions. Questioning the above said orders, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.
8) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the trial Court without considering the facts and the Counter filed by the petitioner in the trial Court, passed the said orders. The relief sought by the respondent is to be scientifically examined but not in the present mode of examining as sought by the respondent. The above said petitions have been filed in a vexatious manner without any justifiable cause or reason. Though there are no reasonable grounds offered by the respondent in the said petitions, the trial Court allowed the said petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these Revision Petitions have been filed.
9) The admitted facts are that the petitioner and the respondent are the wife and husband respectively. The Petitioner filed FCOP No.186 of 2018 on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Tirupati, for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed. In fact, prior to that, the respondent has filed HMOP No.54 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, seeking decree for dissolution of marriage and it is pending for adjudication. Subsequent to disposal of the above said FCOP No.186 of 2018, the respondent obtained Certified copies of the Chief and Cross examination of Rws. 2 and 3 and the CD for conversation between the father of the petitioner and the respondent regarding the appointment of Psychiarist by name Dr. Raja Gopal and regarding the Panchayat held in the house of the petitioner at Tirupati on 25.10.2016.
10) As per the contention of the respondent, the above said documents are very much necessary to prove his case and prayed to receive the documents by recalling RW.1. Accordingly, he filed I.A.No.11 of 2020 seeking to recall RW.1. He filed I.A.No.12 of 2020 seeking to recall PW.1 and to receive the documents. He also filed I.A.No.22 of 2020 seeking to issue summons to RW.1 and Smt. Yamini to attend and give evidence regarding the conversation and panchayat held in the house of the petitioner at Tirupati on 25.10.2016. It appears the petitioner filed Counter Affidavits in all the interlocutory applications. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, allowed the said applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
11) On consideration of the contentions of the respective counsel and the material available on record, it appears that the respondent filed these applications to summon the father of the petitioner and one of the relative of t
