Telangana High Court
G.Shiva Kumar vs Smt.Vijaya Laxmi on 15 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.608 OF 2010
Mr. A. Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Mr. Lohit Konda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) arises out
of an order dated 01.06.2010. The impugned order was
passed in O.P.No.28 of 2007 filed by the appellant for a decree
of divorce in relation to the appellant's marriage with the
respondent.
2. The O.P. states that the marriage between the parties
was solemnized on 06.02.2003. The appellant filed the O.P.
for a grant of the decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty
and desertion.
3. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated
01.06.2010, allowed the O.P., dissolved the marriage between
the parties, and granted a decree of divorce to the appellant as
prayed for.
4. The appellant (the petitioner before the Trial Court) was
however directed to pay the agreed amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
as mentioned in Ex.P4 within three months from the date of
the order. The impugned order further records that if the said
amount is not paid by the appellant to the respondent as
directed, it would be open to the respondent to execute the
decree and recover the amount from the appellant in
accordance with law.
5. The appellant obtained an order of interim stay from a
Co-ordinate Bench on 15.11.2010 subject to the appellant
depositing Rs.2,00,000/-. On 31.03.2015, the Division Bench
expressed its view for not vacating the stay and gave a
direction to the appellant to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in Court
within six weeks. On such deposit, the Registrar (Judicial)
was directed to invest the amount in fixed deposit with any
nationalized bank initially for a period of six months and shall
renew the deposit from time to time till the CMA was heard
and disposed of finally. The appellant thereafter challenged
the impugned order by way of the present CMA.
Subsequently, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat for
an out-of-Court Settlement on 04.04.2017.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the respondent.
7. First and foremost, we find no basis for the present CMA,
since the appellant's O.P. for the grant of divorce was allowed
by the Trial Court by way of the impugned order dated
01.06.2010. The only argument made by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that since the respondent has
remarried and the appellant remains unmarried, the appellant
ought not to have been directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the
respondent. We however find the said submission contrary to
the records.
8. Paragraph 31 of the impugned order refers to Ex.P4,
which is an original receipt letter given by the appellant to the
respondent before the Mediator and signed by the parties and
Mediator on 11.11.2006. In this original receipt, the appellant
clearly states that he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- before the
Mediator with a request to pay the same to the respondent (the
appellant's wife) at the time of obtaining a decree of mutual
consent divorce from the Court. It further states that the
appellant would pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to
the respondent on the same day. The fact of the money being
given to the Mediator has been informed to the Court at the
time of dictating the order.
9. Paragraph 31 of the impugned order clearly mentions
that Ex.P4 was admitted by RW.1 (the respondent) and that
the appellant had agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the
respondent. The Trial Court reiterated the fact of the
Settlement between the parties in the impugned order.
10. We also find from the impugned order that Ex.P4 forms
part of the exhibits marked by the plaintiff (the appellant
herein). Ex.P4 is also part of the records called from the Trial
Court, and we have perused the same. In view of the clear
Settlement arrived at between the parties, and the admission
on the part of the appellant with regard to same on
11.11.2006, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
direction given by the Trial Court on the appellant to pay
Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent.
11. The objection taken by learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the payment is illegal and unreasonable in view
of the respondent re-marrying is factually without basis, since
the respondent could not have re-married as on the date of the
impugned order, i.e., 01.06.2010.
12. Once the appellant's prayer for divorce was granted by
the impugned order, there was no further basis for challenging
the same before this Court. Further, it is evident that despite
the appellant's primary relief for divorce being granted, the
appellant seeks to keep the CMA pending only for an amount
of Rs.2,00,000/-, that too after 15 years. Since the impugned
order is of 01.06.2010 and the Appeal was filed on
13.07.2010, this Court is of the firm view that equity would
also demand that the Appeal be dismissed.
13. C.M.A. No.608 of 2010, along with all connected
applications, is accordingly dismissed.
14. Interim orders, if any, save and except with regard to the
stay of the proceedings, shall stand vacated.
15. The document dated 12.09.2025 filed by the appellant
with regard to the deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- before the
Registrar of this Court is taken on record. The respondent
shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount. There shall be
no order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 15.09.2025
NDS
