Smt.Dr.Madari Sheethal , Guddeti ... vs Dr.Guddeti Poshanna
2024 Latest Caselaw 648 Tel

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.

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.

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