Melam Madhuri Andal vs Melam Kishore
2022 Latest Caselaw 847 AP

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.257 of 2022


ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the non-

registration of Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner

vide G.L.No.771, dated 31.1.2020 for various reasons set out

in the grounds of revision.

3. The petitioner is the respondent in F.C.O.P.No.166 of

2019 on the file of Family Court Judge, Vijayawada. The

husband of the petitioner filed the said O.P., under Section

13(I)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for a decree of

divorce. The petitioner herein moved an Interlocutory

Application vide G.L.No.771/2020 seeking various reliefs

sought for therein, which includes grant of maintenance,

return of moneys, gold ornaments from the husband of the

petitioner and also grant of compensation for causing mental

agony etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned

Family Court returned the I.A., raising an objection with regard

to its maintainability, which is not sustainable in law in view of

the judgment in Somarapu Satyanarayana v. Vijaya Laxmi1

and draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.14 of

the said judgment. Learned counsel would further submit that

in the light of the said judgment, the petitioner herein is

entitled to seek the reliefs that an aggrieved person can seek in

a suit or other legal proceeding, in a matter instituted before

the Family Court. Learned counsel also submits that though

the returned I.A., was re-presented by complying with the

office objections and enclosing a copy of the said judgment, so

far learned Family Court has not examined the same and

registered the said I.A. He submits that unless this Court

exercises its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India and directs the learned Family Court to

register the I.A., as expeditiously as possible, the petitioner

would suffer further serious prejudice. Learned counsel also

states that as the Courts are likely to function physically very

soon, the matter is likely to be taken-up for recording evidence.

Accordingly, he seeks appropriate directions from this Court.

5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for

the petitioner and perused the judgment in Somarapu

Satyanarayana (cited supra). As the grievance of the

petitioner is that despite complying with the office objections

and re-presentation of the application filed by the petitioner

1 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 361

vide G.L.No.771, dated 31.1.2020, the same is kept pending

without processing the same, this Court deems it appropriate

to direct the learned Family Court to take-up the said

application and process the same, if it is otherwise in order

and entertainable in view of the judgment in Somarapu

Satyanarayana (cited supra), within a period of three weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No

costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications,

if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J February 15, 2022.

vasu