##PAGE1##

I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY

C.R.P.Nos.4217, 4247 & 4251 of 2025

DATE OF COMMON ORDER: 19.12.2025

Betw een :

Rajitha Mora, D/o: Ravinder Mora,

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Charted Accountant,

R/o: H.No. 1-9-252/9/116, EWS-2, Q.No. 51,

Near YSR Park, East Parsiguda, Ramnagar,

Hyderabad.

…Petitioner

AND

Venkata Sankara Pavan Sukumar Macharla,

S/o: Nagabhushanam Macharla,

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Physical Trainer,

R/o: Plot no. 27, H.No. 7-201,

Sirimalle Vihar Colony, Beside SMR Vinay

Harmony Country, Lane Opp. to

Vaishnavi Oasis Main Gate,

Bandlaguda Jagir, Hyderabad.

…Respondent

COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis involved in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is

between the same parties, they are heard together and are being

decided by this Common Order.

Page 2 of 7

2. Heard Ms. Ramaa Swetha Ogirala, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner; and Ms. Pujyam Sai Sri, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. H.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. C.R.P.No.4217 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner assailing the

order passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short, the

‘Family Court’), in I.A.No.1905 of 2025 in O.P.No.430 of 2021,

decided on 08.10.2025, whereby the request of the petitioner to

recall the evidence of PW.1 for cross-examination by petitioner’s

counsel was dismissed.

4. C.R.P.No.4247 of 2025 is one filed by the petitioner assailing

the order passed by the Family Court in I.A.No.1904 of 2025 in

O.P.No.430 of 2021, decided on 08.10.2025, requesting the Family

Court to set aside the order dated 15.05.2025, whereby the right

of the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 stood closed.

5. Lastly, C.R.P.No.4251 of 2025 filed by the petitioner assailing

the order passed by the Family Court, in I.A.No.1906 of 2025 in

O.P.No.430 of 2021, decided on 08.10.2025, whereby the request

Page 3 of 7

of the petitioner to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of

cross-examination by petitioner’s counsel was also dismissed.

6. For convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.4247 of 2025 are

discussed hereunder.

7. A perusal of the pleadings would go to show that PW.1 has

filed his chief evidence affidavit on 12.12.2023 and the matter

thereafter stood for cross-examination of PW.1. It is contended that

in spite of repeated opportunities being granted, the petitioner was

evading the cross-examination, and in the process on 15.05.2025

the right of the petitioner for cross-examination stood foreclosed.

8. What weighs more in the mind of this Court is the fact that

the dispute is primarily between husband and wife and O.P.No.403

of 2021 is one which has been filed by the respondent / husband

seeking restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, O.P.No.639 of 2021

is one which was been filed by the petitioner / wife seeking

dissolution of the marriage, and in the process, PW.1 filed his chief

evidence affidavit on 12.12.2023. However, the Family Court

appointed an Advocate Commissioner i.e. Rehana Khanam for

recording the cross-examination of PW.1. Since several dates were

Page 4 of 7

granted and the cross-examination could not happen, the right to

cross-examination was closed and the matter stood fixed for

evidence of the respondent.

9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed objecting as

if several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-

examine. In fact, the default on the part of the petitioner was only

two days and that too was because of certain compelling personal

reasons and not for any other reason or for protracting the

proceedings. It is further contended that since couple of I.As. were

filed in between, cross-examination could not happen and that was

not the fault of the petitioner as has been projected by the Family

Court.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however

opposed the Rev