Telangana High Court
Mohammed Ghouse Pasha vs /Summaya Sultana on 6 January, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
Page 1 of 4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Family Court Appeal No.113 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The instant is an appeal filed by the appellant (husband)
under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the
order dated 11.01.2024 in O.P.No.906 of 2021 passed by the
Judge, II Additional Family Court - cum - XV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil
Court, at Hyderabad (for short, 'the impugned order').
2. Heard Mr. L. Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
(husband) and Mr.Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for
the respondent (wife).
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above
O.P. filed by the respondent (wife) under Section 2(ii)(viii) of
Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, and dissolved the
marriage that took place between the petitioner and respondent
on 19.05.2014. It further dismissed the counter-claim filed by
the appellant (husband) seeking restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
PSK,J & RRN,J
fca_113_2024
4. The present appeal is by the appellant challenging the
order of divorce granted by the Trial Court on a divorce petition
filed by the respondent.
5. The dissolution of marriage was sought on the ground of
neglect by the appellant and also that of appellant entering into
second marriage. When the respondent filed the OP before the
Trial Court, notice was issued to the appellant. The appellant
entered appearance before the Trial Court and filed counter-
affidavit. Thereafter, there has been no persuasion by the
appellant. Therefore, the Trial Court was left with no other
option but to pass the impugned order allowing dissolution of
marriage finally.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, as
regards the allegation of cruelty meted out by the appellant to
the respondent, from 05.02.2017 onwards the appellant has
been neglecting the respondent and that the respondent was not
been taken proper care of by the appellant; and neither the
appellant was providing necessary assistance for sustenance
and survival of the respondent . Ultimately, the respondent had
to depend upon her parents and also upon her brothers to
support her for sustenance.
PSK,J & RRN,J
fca_113_2024
7. It was on this ground that the respondent had filed divorce
petition before the Trial Court. The respondent has led evidence
as PW.1 before the Trial Court. However, in spite of an
opportunity being granted, the appellant chose not to lead any
evidence and, as a consequence, in the absence of any evidence
being adduced on behalf of the appellant in rebuttal to the
evidence adduced by the respondent, the Trial Court was
pleased to allow the divorce O.P. duly considering the
documents and evidence available on record.
8. During the course of arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that there is no
strong, cogent material adduced by the appellant before the Trial
court, nor was there any strong evidence, oral or documentary,
to disprove the contentions of the respondent in her deposition
or in her pleadings seeking for dissolution of marriage. Though
the appellant has entered appearance and filed a detailed
counter-affidavit to the O.P., however he did not pursue the O.P.
further before the Trial Court so as to hold the findings given by
the Trial Court to be bad in law or, on an earlier occasion also
the appellant did not take any steps to bring back the
respondent to stay along with him. On the contrary, from the
PSK,J & RRN,J
fca_113_2024
pleadings of the respondent, it stands proved that the appellant
had subsequently entered into a second marriage with yet
another lady by name Ms.Mariam Fatima, and from which
relationship there was a child born. It appears that once when
the appellant had entered into second marriage with the said
lady, the appellant had stopped having any relationship with the
respondent, in spite of best efforts made by the respondent.
9. In the given factual backdrop, when we do not find any
merit in the appeal even for admitting the same, we are left with
no other option but to reject the appeal at this stage.
10. Accordingly, the appeal stand rejected. No costs.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date : 06.01.2025
Ndr
