Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Padala Chiranjeevi Reddy, W.G.Dist vs Padala Anupama Kovvuri W.G.Dist on 19 November, 2019
Author: M.Venkata Ramana
Bench: M.Venkata Ramana
MVR,J
CRP.No.1181 of 2017
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1181 of 2017
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.1838 of 2015 in O.P.No.149 of 2014, dated 06.12.2016, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.
2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. There are disputes in respect of their alleged marriage. O.P.No.149 of 1014 is instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act raising several grounds. The petitioner resisted this divorce petition filed by his wife raising several grounds including denial of marriage as well as marital relationship in between them.
3. He filed I.A.No.1838 of 2015 under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC to reject the divorce petition, questioning jural relationship in between them. He mainly relied on a complaint presented by the respondent to the police, whereupon C.C.No.777 of 2013 has been instituted on the file of the Court of learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem for the offences under Section 495 IPC and under Section 498-A IPC. According him, as per the charge sheet filed by the police against him, since 495 IPC is invoked, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. Thus, stating that the respondent has suppressed a material fact and that she did not have any cause of action to institute divorce proceedings against him, he requested to reject the petition.
MVR,J CRP.No.1181 of 2017 2
4. According to the petitioner, he also sought to produce several documents in the above matter filing I.A.No.290 of 2016 in support of his claim.
5. The respondent, in the trial court, resisted this claim of the petitioner filing a counter denying all such allegations. She also questioned the nature of investigation of the police leading to filing charge sheet in C.C.No.777 of 2013 for offences under Section 495 IPC and section 498A IPC and that it is not her version in the petition that she is the second wife of the petitioner nor stated that the petitioner married her after his first marriage with one Smt.Sujatha. She claimed that in all pleadings, she questioned the status of Smt.Sujatha as legally wedded wife of the petitioner and describing her as a concubine. Claiming that she has produced any amount of evidence to support her version as to the jural relationship between her and the petitioner. She also contended that the very fact that the petitioner is seriously contesting the divorce petition, makes out that the petition is only an attempt to procrastinate the matter.
6. Considering the material placed, as well as the pleadings and the contentions of the parties, learned trial Judge dismissed the petition finding it devoid of merit and holding that, such questions raised by the petitioner, shall stand for consideration in a regular trial, where the parties have to lead evidence.
7. It is now contended for the petitioner by his learned counsel, that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the material in proper perspective and that the documents sought to be produced by the MVR,J CRP.No.1181 of 2017 3 petitioner were never taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. Thus, it is stated that the order under revision is bad. Referring to the criminal case filed at the instance of the respondent against the petitioner, it is also contended that, it is making out about status of the respondent vis-à-vis the petitioner as alleged and, in the absence of a legally subsisting and valid marriage in between them, the petition for divorce against the respondent is not proper. It is further contended that continuation of proceedings in the divorce petition in the above circumstances results in waste of time and that it is an abuse of process, to allow the respondent to continue the proceedings. Thus stating, it is requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent sought time to address arguments and it was not granted. However a detailed counter affidavit is filed in the CRP on behalf of the respondent along with certain documents, which is in tune with the counter filed on her behalf in the trial court, referred to above.
9. Now, the point for determination is-"Whether the divorce O.P. instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, is maintainable as such and if it has to be rejected as claimed by the petitioner? POINT:-
10. The only ground on which the petitioner is harping upon to assail the proceedings instituted by the respondent is charge sheet filed by the police at the instance of the respondent in C.C.No.777 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. One of the offences alleged in the MVR,J CRP.No.1181 of 2017 4 charge sheet is under Section 495 IPC. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since the investigation by the police prima facie makes out that the so-called marriage of the respondent and himself is a bigamous relationship, the respondent cannot claim legal status as his wife. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, a divorce petition in terms of Section 13 of Hindu marriage Act cannot be maintained, being invalid and illegal in terms of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act.
11. These questions raised by the petitioner are all serious questions of disputed facts in a case. The tenor of response offered to the petition by the respondent in the trial Court reflects that she is also questioning the nature of investigation went on, on her complaint concerned to C.C.No.777 of 2013. In such an event, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge in the order impugned, maintainability of the divorce petition by the respondent, cannot be decided in a petition filed under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC.
12. The material placed by the petitioner did not make out such circumstances to reject divorce petition filed by the respondent. When he is questioning the legality of the alleged marriage between him and the respondent, necessarily there shall be proof and it must be in course of regular trial. It cannot be subject matter of a summary enquiry in a petition filed under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC. Therefore, finding no justification to interfere with the order under revision, which did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, this revision petition, has to be dismissed.
MVR,J CRP.No.1181 of 2017 5
13. In the result, CRP is dismissed. Consequently, Order in I.A.No.1838 of 2015 in O.P.No.149 of 2014 dated 06.12.2016 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District, is confirmed.
As sequel, the pending petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt:19-11-2019 RRR MVR,J CRP.No.1181 of 2017 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1181 of 2017 DATE: 19-11-2019 RRR