Telangana High Court
G Vijaya Kumar vs Smt. Bathula Indira on 12 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.23 of 2025
Mr. E.Srimanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel for the respondent. (online)
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
The proceeding sheets show that counsel for the appellant
was not ready on 04.03.2025 and was hence given an opportunity
to make himself ready on the next date. On the returnable date, the
appellant was not represented.
2. Today, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein
(respondent before the Trial Court) seeks leave to approach the Trial
Court and contest the F.C.O.P. filed by the respondent herein
(petitioner before the Trial Court) under section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of
The Divorce Act, 1869. We notice that the F.C.O.P. wrongly
mentions section 10(1)(ia) of the Act of 1869. Counsel before the
Trial Court appears to have mixed up the provisions of The Divorce
Act, 1869 and The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The order pronounced by the Trial Court in the F.C.O.P. filed
by the respondent herein is the subject matter of the present
Appeal. The impugned order is dated 04.10.2024.
4. The Trial Court allowed the F.C.O.P. on the ground that the
respondent herein successfully established a case of cruelty by the
appellant to the petitioner and also that the appellant deserted the
respondent.
5. Although counsel appearing for the appellant seeks leave to
contest the F.C.O.P. afresh, we notice from several recordings in the
impugned order that the respondent chose to remain ex parte and
failed to appear before the Court. The recording of the Trial Court is
supported by a series of docket orders contained in the counter filed
on behalf of the respondent to I.A.No.3 of 2025. The docket orders
are fourteen in number and span from 30.07.2022 to 04.10.2024.
The docket orders recorded that the respondent was absent on most
occasions and failed to file his counter despite costs. The
respondent also failed to pay the costs and further costs imposed by
the Trial Court and ultimately failed to file the counter.
6. We hence have no doubt that the Trial Court had good
reasons to set the appellant ex parte. We also do not find any
apparent error in the impugned order.
7. We are also of the view that the appellant should have taken
steps before the Trial Court under the provisions of The Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the decree passed by the
Trial Court itself. There is no explanation by the appellant as to
why no steps were taken in the Trial Court. The appellant appears
to have filed the Appeal after playing truant with the Trial Court
only to harass the respondent.
8. However, considering the request made on behalf of the
appellant for withdrawing the Appeal, we allow the Appeal to be
withdrawn and grant leave to the appellant to approach the Trial
Court by 18.03.2025. The appellant shall file an appropriate
application on or before 18.03.2025 in the Trial Court. The Trial
Court shall make its best endeavor to decide the F.C.O.P. on contest
and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
9. It is made clear that none of the parties shall pray for
adjournments before the Trial Court. It is also made clear that the
Trial Court shall assess the appellant's Application independently
on its own merit and not be influenced or guided by any part of this
order.
10. F.C.A.No.23 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn
subject to the appellant paying costs of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent,
within 7 days from today. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated
and all connected applications are disposed of.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
Date: 12.03.2025
VSU
