Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gudla Vasu Sai Reddy And 2 Others vs Sri Gujju Rami Reddy on 23 July, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010338962009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 92 OF ?nnQ
Between:
1. Gudla Vasu Sai Reddy, S/o G.S.N. Reddy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, R/o
Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapatnam.
2. Gudla Sankara Narayana Reddy, S/o Lakshmaiah, Aged 60 years.
Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapatnam
3. Gudla Parvathy, W/o G,S.N.Reddy, Aged 55 years, Hindu R/o
Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham Visakhapatnam.
■■■APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS
AND
Sri Gujju Rami Reddy, S/o late Raja Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o
D.No.53-38-4/1, KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.
...respondent/petitioner
Appeal under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the decree
and order in O.P No. 480 of 2006
Court, Viskhapatnam.
dated 07.11.2008 by the Judge, Family
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in
the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Kamlakar, Advocate for
the Appellants and of Sri Rama Krishna A, Advocate for Respondent.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the appeal F.C.A.No.92 of 2009 be and hereby is allowed;
2. That the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 in O.P.No.480 of 2006 on
the file of Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge Court,
Visakhapatnam be and hereby is set aside.
3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.
SD/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Judge, Family Court, Viskhapatnam, Viskhapatnam district
2. Two CD Copies
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATE0:23/07/2025
AMOS^
JUDGMENT
FCA NO. 92 OF 2009 I 13 AUG 2025
Current Section
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
APHC010338962009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO family court appf^l (pca) Mn- 92 OF 2009 and CROSS OBJECTIONS |.A No.3 nf pnno Appeal under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the decree and order in O.P No. 480 of 2006 Court, Viskhapatnam.
dated 07.11.2008 by the Judge Family Between:
1. Gudia Vasu Sai Reddy, S/o G.S.N. Reddy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapafnam.
2. Gudia Sankara Narayana Reddy S/o Lakshmaiah, Aged 60 years Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapatnam.
3. Gudia Parvathy, W/o G.S.N.Reddy, ' Aged 55 years, Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham Visakhapatnam.
■-APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS / AND Sri Gujju Rami Reddy, S/o late Raja Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o D.No.53-38-4/1, KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Counsel for the Appellants : SRI P KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI RAMA KRISHNA A lA NO: 3 OF 2009(XOBJ 36786 OF 2009) Between:
Sri Gujju Rami Reddy, S/o late Raja Reddy, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o D.No.53-38-4/1, KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.
...CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND
1. Gudia Vasu Sai Reddy, S/o G.S.N. Reddy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapatnam.
2. Gudia Sankara Narayana Reddy, S/o Lakshmaiah, Aged 60 years, Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapatnam.
3. Gudia Parvathy, W/o G.S.N.Reddy, Aged 55 years, Hindu, R/o Lalithanagar, Behind Sankaramatham, Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the Decree and Order dated 07-11-2008 in O.P No.480 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judge: Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Cross Objector : SRI RAMA KRISHNA A Counsel for the Respondents : SRI P KAMLAKAR The Court made the following :
fj APHC010338962009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3526] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) No. 92 of 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS LA.No.3 OF 2009 Between:
1.GUDLA VASU SAI REDDY AND 2 OTHERS, S/0 G.S.N. REDDY R/0 LALITHANAGAR, BEHIND SANKARAMATHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2.GUDLA SANKARA NARAYANA REDDY, S/0 LAKSHMAIAH R/0 LALITHANAGAR, BEHIND SANKARAMATHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3.GUDLA PARVATHY, W/0 G.S.N.REDDY R/0 LALITHANAGAR BEHIND SANKARAMATHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
.„APPELLANT(S) AND
1.SRI GUJJU RAMI REDDY, S/o late Raja Reddy R/o D.No.53-38- 4/1 KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against orders dated 07.11.2008 and prayed to allow this appeal. Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1.P KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent:
1.RAMA KRISHNA A The Court made the following:2
COMMON JUDGMENT: (PerHon'ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rad) The order dated 07.11.2008 in O.P.No.480 of 2006 on the file of Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam, is under challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity, hereafter called as 'the Act').
2. For convenient purpose, the appellant herein is the respondent in Family Court O.P. hereafter referred to as appellant-respondent and the respondent herein as respondent-petitioner.
3. The appellant-respondent married one Maddi Aruna Kumari on May 28, 2005, following Hindu rites and customs. She is the daughter of the respondent in this appeal and the petitioner in O.P.No.480 of 2006, filed in the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge Court in Visakhapatnam. According to the summary in the OP, the first respondent provided a dowry consisting of 50 Tulas of gold and cash amounting to 5 lakhs rupees, along with an additional 15,000 rupees for other formalities. Despite the aforementioned facts, on 01.02.2006, at around 1:00 p.m., the father of the deceased received a phone call from the appellant, informing him that the body of the respondent's daughter was at the hospital. Following this information, a report was submitted to the IV To|/n Police, and a case was registered under Section 304-B IPC. It remains undisputed that the appellant was convicted for the offense under Section 304-B IPC.
4. The respondent has filed O.P. in the Family Court of Visakhapatnam, with a prayer that the appellant be ordered to repay a dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- for additional formalities. This amount was raised through the sale of his property. To support his claim, the respondent provided relevant documents. including Ex.AI, the pattadar passbook, and Ex.A2 the registered sale deed executed in favor of a third party, demonstrating that the dowry payment was made from the sale proceedings. The respondent testified as PW1 and also presented the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 to reinforce his case.
5. The appellant has not only denied the petition averments in toto and it is stated that sale price of the sale deed is only for Rs.2,76,250/- and there is no whisper as to the source of other balance amount of Rs.2,38,750/- and the presence of the alleged mediators was pressed at the behest of the police and prayed to dismiss the O.P. filed to direct for payment of Rs.5,15,000/- and the respondent he himself examined as RW1 and examined RW2.
4
6. The Family Court at Visakhapatnam, after considering the documentary and oral evidence, has ordered vide order dated 07.11.2008 the appellant to pay Rs.2,76,500/- on the premise that the deceased wife had worn gold ornaments, despite the petitioner (PW1) being unable to prove that the gold ornaments were purchased with the sale proceeds of the property executed under Ex A2.
7. The order dated 07.11.2008 in O.P. No; 480 of 2006 on the file of Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge Court Visakhapatnam is under challenge on the following grounds:
1) It is the contention that the Family Court, has no jurisdiction as per Explanation (c) of S.7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as the proceeding is not between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property or of either of them; and the petitioner who is respondent in the appeal is father he does't not fall under the category of parties to the marriage.
2) There is no evidence demonstrating that the dowry payment was made from the sale proceedings and the witness who examined on behalf of the respondent petitioner has not stated anything against the appellant herein.
3) The Family Court has erroneously has granted the relief partly on surmises and conjectures. And relied on the following Judgments:
I 5
1. G.Pentamma and others Vs. G. Anjali and another reported in 2010 (5)ALD 332.
2. P.Srihari vs. P.Sukunda and another reported in 2001 (1) ALT 739 DB. For the proposition "that essential ingredient should be a dispute between the husband and the wife and the said can be with regard to their marital status, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, child custody maintenance, as also property sharing. But, in no event the Family court can have Jurisdiction if the above dispute is absent. By no stretch of imagination, can the Family court assume jurisdiction, if there is a dispute between the brother, sisters mothers, fathers etc., concerning property and the case on hand being one such, the family court had clearly no Jurisdiction.
3. Gandru Venugopala Krishna Vs. Vankayalapati Gandru Rajani reported in 2024 (3) ALT 175, and the counsel relied para 16 which is hereby extracted:
"The Dowry Prohibition Act is a special statute. It has, in our opinion, created a special right by s.6(1) for recovery of dowry, although both the giving and the taking of dowry are made punishable offences, and this Act also prescribes the remedy for recovery of the dowry. If the dowry is not transferred despite the order of the Court (meaning Criminal Court) made under s. 6(3-A), the same may be realised by following the procedure for the realisation of fines. This I // 6 appears clearly to be the law arising from the provisions of s. 6(3-A) of the Act".
4. M.Narsing a Rao vs. State of A.P., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691:
for the proposition: "the word Proof need be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of Evidence."
5. K.Abdul Jaleel Vs. T.A. Shahida reported in (2003) 4 SCC 166:
As seen from the facts of the case, it is the contention of the husband appellant before the Apex Court that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards to the properties claimed by a divorced wife. Answered in the following:
'Ron'ble the Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether the Act would be applicable only during subsistence of the marriage, or otherwise, and held, that dispute over the property, between the parties to a marriage, cannot be confined to the parties to a subsisting marriage."
8 The learned counsel representing for the respondent petitioner has supported the case and emphasizing that under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, all provisions of the CPC are applicable, hence the Family Court has jurisdiction. He cited the judgment of Kerala High Court in \eby Issac vs. Leena M. Ninan, reported in 2005 LawSuit (Ker) 7
345. However, it is important to note that this judgment relates to Explanation (d) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and is not relevant to the present facts of this case.
9. COURT'S DECISION-
For better appreciation of the case, it would be apt to extract Section 7 of the Act.
"7: Jurisdiction. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall-
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purpose of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation - The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:-
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
\ 8
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise-
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment."
10. The primary argument put forth by the appellant's counsel JsThat the Family Court lacks jurisdiction, according to Explanation (c) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. This is because the proceedings do not involve the parties to a marriage regarding property or issues related to either of them. Furthermore, the petitioner, who is \ 9 the respondent in this appeal, is the father and does not qualify as a party to the marriage.
11. Recently the Apex Court in the case of Ivan Rathinam vs Milan Joseph reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 175, held that: The jurisdiction conferred upon the Family Court is for the settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes. A matrimonial cause essentially relates to the rights of marriage between a husband and wife. In the said case there is no claim regarding the marital relationship between the Respondent's mother and Mr. Raju Kurian, and instead, it pertains to an alleged extra-marital relationship between the Appellant and the Respondents mother. This matter, therefore, cannot be construed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and was thus, rightly entertained by the Munsiff Court and subsequently, the Sub-Judge.
12. However, we are not concerned with the lack of jurisdiction of the Family Court, at this juncture, though it is a question of law that can be raised at any stage.
13. And it is trite law under Section 101 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts. Under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, the provisions of the Indian 10 Evidence Act, have no strict application to the proceedings before the Family Courts owing. That does not however dispel the application of the basic principle that in a civil case, facts are to be proved at least by preponderance of probabilities, to obtain a decree.
14. After considering the scope and ambit of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Bobbin Ramakrishna Raju Yadav and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another [{20^6) 3 SCC 309] held that:
"If the dowry amount or articles of married woman was placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving dowry articles or the person who has dominion over the same, as per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return the same within three months after the date of marriage to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section. The section further lays down that even after his conviction he must return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated in the order."
15. Further observed that "Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under 11 % the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act". SO
16. The Legislature itself has provided in Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act that the person who took the dowry shall give it to the woman, and in the interregnum to hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. Therefore, it is the right of a woman to file a suit to recover the amount and gold from the person who held the dowry in trust, if that person has not transferred the trust property in favour of the woman. It follows that the claim in the original petition is permissible in law.
17. In the case of P.P.RaJesh end another vs. Deepthi PR. reported in 2021 see Online Ker 16340 it was held, "It is a customary practice in our country, particularly in our state among all the communities, that parents would gift gold ornaments to their daughters at the time of marriage as a token of love. Indian parents start making jewellery for their daughters from their birth to make sure that they have enough golden jewellery for their marriage. Thus, it would be unrealistic for a Court to insist on documentary evidence regarding ornaments that had changed hands at the time of marriage. The Court can, certainly, act upon oral evidence if it is found credible and trustworthy. It is also quite common that when the bride moves to the house of the groom after the 12 marriage, she takes all her ornaments and entrusts the same, except a few required for daily wear, to her husband or in-laws for safe custody. Such entrustment also could be established by the sole testimony of the wife since, normally, no independent witness would be available to witness the same. Once such entrustment is made, a trust gets created. Being a trustee, the husband or his parents, as the case may be, is liable to return the same. Once it is proved that gold ornaments were entrusted by the wife to the husband, the burden is on the husband to prove, what happened to the gold ornaments. In the present case there is no evidence that the ornament or cash was entrusted to the appellant husband or his family members."
18. Even to prove a fact by preponderance of probabilities, the first step in the process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often mix-together. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. [See the judgment of the i Apex court in Dr.N.G.Dastane v. Mrs.S.Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534].
19. Now the burden is upon the respondent petitioner to prove the he paid an amount of dowry of Rs.5 lakhs to the appellant respondent and i* Rs. 15,000/- towards other formalities. The respondent petitioner he himself examined as PW1 and he has examined PW2 and PW3. (( 13 In the cross examination of PW2 it is testified that and admitted that respondent petitioner has sold the property for purchasing another land.
In the cross examination of PW3 it is testified that he does not know how the respondent petitioner brought Rs. 5 lakhs.
20. As seen in the Family Court's judgment, the extent and survey number of the land sold by the petitioner were stated. The Family Court's partial decree in favor of the respondent petitioner, based solely on sympathy, is legally unfounded. As there is no evidence to support this decision and the witnesses have examined not supported the petitioner's case, the petitioner should be non-suited as he has not discharged the preponderance of probability. Sympathy is no ground to decide the case under law. The order and decree of the Family Court on misplaced sympathy and non-existent justification. The respondent petitioner should be non-suited on the basis of no evidence.
21. The evidence brought on record by the respondent should be appreciated in the light of the aforesaid principle of law. Having considered the entire evidence concerning the above aspects we find the infirmity in the findings of the Family Court that the evidence is insufficient to substantiate the claim for recovery of Rs.5 lakhs as well / 14 as Rs. 15,000/- (in words Fifteen thousand) only paid towards other formalities to the appellant. Hence, the said findings are not sustainable.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 in O.P.No.480 of 2006 on the file of Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam, is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, it is hereby set aside, and the appeal F.C.A.No.92 of 2009 is allowed.
23. Cross Objections I.A.No.3 of 2009 is rendered infructuous in pursuant to the appeal filed by the husband is allowed.
As a sequel, all interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these cases shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY i.
JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Judge, Family Court, Viskhapatnam, Viskhapatnam district (with records )
2. One CC to Sri. P Kamlakar Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. Rama Krishna A Advocate [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
5. Two CD Copies stu TAC ii HIGH COURT DATED:23/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE FCA NO. 92 OF 2009 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS I.A No.3 of 2009 ALLOWING THE APPEAL