Telangana High Court
Smt.Dr.Madari Sheethal , Guddeti ... vs Dr.Guddeti Poshanna on 15 February, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.320 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr.G.Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the appellant/wife. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/husband.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 06.09.2012 passed in FCOP.No.289 of 2010 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, the appellant/wife filed the present appeal.
3. The appellant/wife had filed a petition vide FCOP No.289 of 2010 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. against the respondent herein/husband seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs and also recovery of money.
4. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 22.10.2004 as per hindu customs and rites. It is an arranged marriage. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. 2
5. According to the respondent/husband, the appellant herein/wife left UK just before passing of decree and she came to Secunderabad and filed the present FCOP.
6. To prove the claim of the appellant, she has examined herself as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.29 documents. To disprove her claim, the respondent herein has examined himself as R.W.1 and filed Exs.B.1 to B.29.
7. On consideration of entire evidence, vide impugned order dated 08.09.2012, learned Family Court allowed the FCOP granting relief of return of amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate costs and respondent herein is directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of the said order. Learned Family Court also granted liberty to the appellant to recover the same with costs with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a. from the date of default i.e. after one month from the date of the said order and till the date of realization. Liberty is also granted to the respondent herein to seek undertaking from the father of the appellant to the satisfaction of the Court that he cannot claim again a sum of Rs.3 lakhs which is then being deposited for the said purpose. The appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the aforesaid order to the extent of denying maintenance to her. 3
8. According to the appellant herein, the respondent obtained decree of divorce in foreign court by playing fraud and misrepresentation. It has no jurisdiction at all.
9. It is relevant to note that the appellant herein is also a Doctor and she is gynecologist. She is highly qualified in Medicine i.e. MBBS, MD, DGO, DNB, MRCOG. Respondent is Pediatrician. Therefore, according to the Family Court, the appellant is having earning capacity. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant/wife seeking maintenance. However, the relief of return of the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs was granted to the appellant. Therefore, according to us, the impugned order is a reasoned order and well considered. It does not require interference by this Court
10. Accordingly, this Family Court Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Date:15.02.2024 Vvr