Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Chintaluari Jagadeeswara Rao, S/O. Kasnakama – Appellant
Versus
Chintalauri Naveena, W/o. Chintalauri Jagadeswara Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
Introductory:-
Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his petition/application filed in terms of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 denying the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the petitioner in O.P.No.11 of 2003, filed the present appeal.
2. O.P.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, at Visakhapatnam was dismissed vide order and decree dated 07.11.2006.
3. Respondent herein is his wife and she is the respondent before the learned Family Court.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties are herein after referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.
Case of the Petitioner/husband :-
5. [i] The marriage between petitioner and the respondent was performed according to Hindu religious customs and rites. During their wed lock, they are blessed with a child by name Shasidhar Mani.
[ii] In the year 1993, the respondent went to Anakapalle to her parents house for delivery and she came back in the year 1995. Again she went back to her parental home at Anakapalle on the ground of sickness of her brother and never returned. However, he used to visit Anakapalle. On 12.09.2002 the respondent gav
The appeal for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was dismissed due to the husband's failure to demonstrate genuine efforts to maintain marital relationships and care for his wife and child.
Restitution decree under Section 9 HMA denied as wife failed to prove husband's withdrawal without reasonable excuse; acquittal in cruelty case and unreliable evidence establish justification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a matrimonial dispute, the party claiming restitution of conjugal rights must prove that the other party left without reasonable cause, and....
The court affirmed the Family Court's dismissal of the restitution petition, ruling that the respondent had reasonable cause to withdraw from the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of pleadings in ....
The burden of proof in restitution of conjugal rights lies with the withdrawing spouse to show reasonable cause for separation; the court affirms joint responsibility in marriage.
Court ruled that repeated cruelty constitutes valid grounds against restitution of conjugal rights.
The statutory provision allows for divorce if no restitution of conjugal rights occurs for over a year post-decree, validating the grounds for divorce.
A decree of restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted if the spouse's withdrawal is justified by cruelty and lack of assurance for a peaceful conjugal life.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
