Dasari Sudhir Praveen v. Smt. Gaddam Divya Ratna Mani

Counsel for the Respondents: SEETHA RAMAIAH MATURI The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI 'LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA TARA CML REVISION PETITION No.9OO of 1O25 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2o25 Between: Mr.Dasari Sudhir Prar.e en, Hyderabad AND Mrs.Gaddam Divya l?atna Mani, Kadapa District. .. .petitioner ...respondent ORDER: Heard Mr. Dasari Sud hir Pravecn, petitioner i arty-in-person and Mr. Seelha Ramaiarh N'laLturi. learned ccr nsel for the respondent. Perused thc rcr:ord

2. This Civil Revision PctiLion is liled aggrieverl by the Order dated 20.01.2025 passed in l.A. No. I2O of 2O23 i r F.C.O.P. No 322 of 2O2O bv the Ill Additional District and Sessio: Ls Judge-cum- II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Pr ncipal Family Court Judge, Meclchzrl Malka.lgir-r [)istricL at Kukat]r I Iy, rvherein an application filed b1, Lht' rcspondcrrt/ \\'i[c undcr Ordcr IX Rule 7 read 7 RY,J crp_goo 2025 with 151 of the CpC to set aside the ex parte order dated 26'06'2023 a,d to receive her counter in F.c.o.p. No. 322 of 2o2o has been a.llowed. 3' The brief background facts of the case are that the petitioner/husband filed F.c.o.p. No. 322 of 2o2o under section I0 (1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissorution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said matter stood posted on 25.02.2021 for appearance of the parties. On said date, the petitioner appeared but the respondent/ u'ife fa ed to appear. on account of the corona pandemic, the case was adjourned from 15.05.2021 till 2O.O9.2O21. Thereafter, for some other reasons, though there was no delay on the part of the parties, the case was posted for reconciliation on 26.03.2022. on said date, the petitioner was present but the respondent was absent. The respondent/wife did not lile counter in the F.c.o.p. Then, the matter was posted for conciliation between the parties on three occasions. However, on account of mediations held betv'een the parties, she failed to reach the Court and on 05. 12.2022. The Court has deemed that mediation betrveen thc parties failed and treating the respondent as ex parte posted the matter for evidence of the petitioner on 3 RY,J crp_9OO_202 5

26.06.2023. While things stood thus, the responden filed petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC along with her countt r in the main F'.C.O.P.

4. In the petition, the responde nt has stated t rat the main reason for not filing counter is that there '*,e re Seve - Ll negotiations and mediations bctween the pzuties lor reconciiiatio r by elders and in said mediations, the petitioner herein promised tc not press the F.C.O.P., and that he u,ould take her back to lead n rtrimonial life. On account of the promise made b,y the petition:r herein, the respondent did not hle counter in the F.C.O.P. Whi: things stood thus, the petitioner failed to vvithdrar,r' the F.C.O.P, Lnd the matter continued to the stage of filing of petitioner's er i lence. At this stage, the respondent to defend her case liled petitir n under Order IX Rule 7 CPC along with her countcr in the main Ir ( ).O.P.

5. The petitioner herein filed cor,rnter opposing tl e petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to se t aside the ex oc.te order dated

26.06.2023, alleging that the rcasons sral-ecl therei r for non-filing of counter for a period of three (03f lears rrere {hls :. According to the petitioner, there \\,ere no negotiations as thcre .r,as always life threat to him. On accolrnt o[ lifc threat, the p etitioner never 4 RY,J c,p_goo 2025 participated in any mediations for settrement between the parties. In fact, during the entire time period, during which the respondent did not file counter, she was busy filing false crimina_l cases against the petitioner to get him arrested for the second time. The respondent all the time emptoyed high handed tactics to pressurize the petitioner into submission and to make him withdraw the F.C.O.P. However, the petitioner has not succumbed to the Pressure tactics employed by the respondent a'Id he stood for justice. When the petitioner did not succumb to the pressure exerted by the respondent, she came forward to file the counter.

6. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the Family co,rt carne to a conclusion thaL it is necessa,lr to see that the case is adjudicated on merirs b_r, conducting full_fledged inquiry by giving both parties necessar-\. opportunity. Further, it is held that it is necessary to give an opportunity to the wife to contest the F'c'o'P' and no prejudice u'ilt bc caused to the husba,d. It is a-rso held that for better adjudicarion of rhe case, the wife should be given opportunity to contcsr rhe case. Therefore, the petition was allowed on costs of Rs. I,OOO/-. 5 RY,J <:rp 9OO 2025

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 2O.O1.2O25 pi ssed b1' the Family Court, the petitioner has filed this Civil Rer ision Petition raising innumerable grounds running into approximz lely 27 pages referring to the conduct of his wife and the facts - lated thereto which are disputed between the parties. According to he petitioner, there are no grounds to set aside the ex pat1. order dated

26.06.2023 as the respondent did not avail three (Oii years of time and lnnumerable opportunities to file a counter. LIlt mately, when she is ex parTe and when his evidence afhdavit is filed, the respondent has no reasonable grounds to come and 13:t Lhe ex parte order dated 26.06.2023 set aside with leave to file cor- nter. It is the case of petitioner that whatever reasons are cited fo setting aside the ex parte order dated 26.06.2023 are not correct B. Further, reference is made to the observatior r o[ the Court and the petitioner's olvn point is made arllcgirlg t r rt the Family Court has committed an error in assessing tht truth in the assertions made by the respondent u,hile seeking tc, s:t aside Li;,e ex parte order dated 26.06.2023. Thre petitioner in f ict found the obsen,ations made by the Family Cour[ as biased ar r far.ouring the 6 RY,J crp_go? 2025 respondent/wife, though the respondent/u,ife has been the cause for a-ll the trouble which led to filing of the F.C.O.p.

9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/husband has lost sight of the fact that factual allegations made by respondent/wife and the petitioner/husband can be ascertained only after a fult-fledged trial and not within the boundaries of an Interlocutory Application proceedings. The truth in the version of the respondent/wife that she did not file counter on account of some kind of an assurance on beha-lf of the petitioner to u,ithdrau, the F.c.o.p. cannot be ascertained unless there is some evidence in support of the same. Similarly, the truth in the version of the petitioner that there were no mediations whatsoever, as thcre *.as a life threat to him from the respondent and her famil_r mcmbers is also a fact which cannot be ascertained unless evidence is lcd. Similarly, all the allegations made by the petitioner agair-rst the respondent calnot be ascertained for their truthfulness at this stagc in the Interl0cutory proceedings. \a When the F.C.O.P is ar rhe nascent stage of trial i.e., when thb chief alfidavit of the peririor.rer is filed, giving an opportunity to 1 7 RY,J crp 9OO 2025 the rvife to put forth her case is arr attempt to give air chalce for the u,ife to prove her case. The principles of natural - -rstice and fair play require that an equal opportunity be given to both the rival parties before a verdict is pronounced. That being tt ( case, the trial Court is well within the limits of its power to set asi le the ex parte order. The said ex parte order is not meant to c.\tl;e prejudice to an,l, party rather it is an order which is intended to I ive fair chance to the r .ife to put forth her case. I I. ln this regard, a reference may be made to t- : finding given b,r: the High Court of Orissa in the case of : iuartaappraud Panigrahi u. Manoj Kumar Paddgl, wherein it is l.eld that law is u cll settled that Court should always make cndc:t'.' )urs [o <Iispose of thc m.rtter on contest instead of disposing thc ;ame on hyper t-cchnicalrtv. When the appellant/wife is interest('l to contest the procccdings, she should be given an opportunit-t L thc matter to contest tlre case. Similarly, in the case of Bhagga I tkshmi B.S. u. Vasant kumar G.U.z, the High Court of Karnatzrl: L has held that lr,hen the appellant did not appea.r before the FzLrr r _r, Clourt due to bona ftde reason i.e., on account of illness o[ hcr r Lothcr and that '20t6 (t) oLIt 844 'i\,1.1i..\. No 2908 ol 201 9 (FC) 8 \ RY,J crp_9OO_2025 she had to take care of her mother, the fact remains that the impugned judgment and decree is an ex parte decree without the appellant herein having contested the petition for divorce which has ultimately resulted in dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce passed ex parte. It is held that the appeUant herein ought to have been given opportunity to contest the petition filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage. Since the statement of objections filed by the appellant u,as already on record, the same was ordered to be taken into consideration by the Family Court.

12. In both the aforementioned judgments, the wife ,.^,as set ex parte and evidence was led ex parte. In Bhagga La-kshmi (Supra 2) case, a decree was also passed ex pctrte for dissolution of marriage. In both the cases, it is held that an opport,nity should be given to the wife in case she intends to contest the F.C.O.p. Similarly, the Family Court has given an opportunity to the respondent/wife herein to contest the case as she has dcmonstrated that she intends to contest the F.c.o.p., b-v filing the counter along with the petition to set aside the ex parte order . [n vie*' of the filing of counter, since the F.C.O.P., is still at the nascent stage of trial, since the principles of naturar justicc and rair play require that 9 RY,J crP-gOO 2025 both parties be given equal opportunity to contest the case, the Family' Court has rightly set aside tL-e ex par\ order dated

26.06.2023, giving an opportunity to the wife to o,,ntest the Op. Further, only to put on record that there are latches on the part of the ',vife in hling the counter, the Family Court has r ghtly imposed costs o[ Rs. l,OOO/ Since the rights involved in r]r, F.C.O.p., are personal and cannot be decided by denying opporlr nity to one of the parties to contest the case, it is only just and I roper that the Family Court has passed the impugned order. I r vierv of the foregoing discussion, this court sees no reason to ir 1 :rfere nith the impugned order and the Civil Revision petition i; liable to be dismissed .

13. [n thc rcsrrlL, thc civil Revision petition is d r missecl. Thert, shall bc no orclcr as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall s t rnd closed sD/- SS T S RINIVASAREDDY IS;' ANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// .S ECTION OFFICER To, 'I The lll Addl District and Sessions Judge-cum- ll Addl I letropolrtan Sessions Judge-cum-FAC. Addl. Family Court Judge a: (ukatpally Medchal - Malkajgiri District. 2 One CC to SRI PARTY lN PERSON Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI SEETHA RAil/lAlAH MATURI Advocate i( PUCI 4. Two CD CoPies PK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 1t1212025 CRP.No.900 of 2025 ':T e.EH <) 71 JAN r26 >, a) * s 't F,A l!!!" CIVIL REVISION PEITITION IS DTSMISSE ]. r\ t, a