The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Lohit Konda for SRI B CHANDRASEN REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BH-ATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR c MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.608 0F 2010 Mr. A. Venkat Rzrghu Ramulu, lcarned counsel appearing I )r the irppellant Mr. I-ohit Konda, learned counscl appearing for the respon lr nt. JUDGMENT: (l)er Hon'ble Justicc Moushumi Bhattachar\ i,

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) arises out of an order dated O 1.06.2010. The impLr6;ned order was passed in O.I'.No.28 of 2OO7 filed by the appr llant for a decree of divorce in relation to the appeltant's m airiagc with the respondent. 2" The O.P. states that the marriage bctitr:en the parties r,r,as solemnized on 06.O2.2OO3. The appellt r-lt filed the O.p. for a grant of the decree of divorce on the gr-trrnd s of cruelty a]1d desertion.

3. The Trjal Court, by the impugncrl order dated 01.06.2010, allou'ed the O.P., dissolved the rrarriage between the parties, and granted a decree of divorce to ttre altpellant as prqed for. \ 2 .- \ F-- -1 4' The appellant (the petitioner before the Triar 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 appellarrt 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.O3.20i5, rhe Division Bench expressed its view for not vacating the stay and gave a direction to the appellant to deposit Rs.2,O0,OOO/_ in Court within six weeks. On such deposit, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to invest the amount in fked 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 fina-lly. The appellant thereafter challenged the impugned order by wav of the present CMA. 3 Subsequentl-!'. the partics \\.crc rclcrrccl to thc -ok r\dalat lor an out of Court SctLlcmcnt on 04.0'1.20 l7

6. We have heard learncd counsel altpt'irring for the appellant and the respondcn t

7. First an<l foremost, u,e find no basis for thc l:,rcscnt CMA, since the appcllant's O.P. for ttre granl of divorr I u its allori'cd b,r' the Trial Court b-\ ual ol thc impugrrccl orclt:r datcd

01.06.201O. The onlv argumenl made br' lci rncc-l counsel appearing lor the appcllant is th:rt sittce tltc rr s rotr<lent lras rematrried and the appellant rcmait-rs unmzrrricd. thc ,rppcllant ought no[ to have been dirccted to pa5, Rs.2,0(;,0007 to the respondent. We hor.r,ever find the said submissi()rr corltran' to the records

8. Par:rgr:rph 3l ol thc rntpugnccl orclc:r re l',rts to Ex.P'}, ',r-hich is an original rece ipt lclLcl gilcn br Lhc a1;pc llant to thc respondent bclore thc Mcdiator and signcd lrl tl:c pirrtics z'tnd Mediator on I t.11.2006. In this orrginal rcct--ipt. rrr: :rppellant clearly states that he has dcpositcd Rs.I .00,00t,,1 btforc the Mediator u,ith a reqLrcst to pa1 thc same to lhc rcsPoltclent (the appe llant's u rf e) at thc timc of obtaining :r clct't lc ot' mLltLlrrl ',1 consent divorcc from the (lor,rrt. It lr-rrther states that the appellant would pa,v Lhe balancc amoLrnt of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent on the samc dnr'. 'l'lrc fact of the money being given to the Mediator has bc<'n in formed to the Court at the time of dictating the ordcr

9. Paragraph 31 of thc imprrgnr:d order clcarly mentions that Ex.P4 u,as admitted b-r RW.I (1he respondcnt) and that the appellant l-rad agrct'd lo l)4.\ IRs.2.00,OO0/ - to the respondent. The Trial CoLn't rcitcratcd thc fact of the Settlement betr,r,een thc partics in thc impr-rgned order

10. We also find from tht' impugned order that Ex.P4 forms part of the exhibits markcd b-r. the plaintiff (the appellant herein). trx.P4 is also part ol thc rccords ca,llcd from the Trial Court, and u,e havc peruscd t lrt' siunt:- [n vicr.r' of the clear Settlement arrived at betrr ccn tltc parLlcs, and the admission on the part o[ the apltcllart t u ith regard to same on

11.1 1.2006, we do not fincl arrr rcason to intcrlere with the direction given by thc Trial Court on the appellant to pay Rs.2,00,000/ to the re spondent ,t 11 The objcction taken b_v learned counsel a1,1,,caring for the appellant Lh:,rL the pa),ment is i cgal and unre:r;or-rabIe in view of the respondent re marrying is lactually u,itht r I b.rsis, since the respondcnt could not havc rc-marncd as ol) t hc (le1te of the impuened orrlr.r. i.r... 01.06.20 I 0.

12. Once thc appellant's pl.ay(.r {br divorce \\ irs gt zlnted by the impugncd older, therc u.as no further basis itr- cira enging the same bcfi,-e rl-ris Court. Iilrrthcr, il is c'rclt.rr r t lr:.t .lespite the appellant's primary relief for divorcc bcinil grantecl, the appellant seel<s to keep the CMA pending onlv lil. eur amount of Rs.2,00,00O/ . rhat loo afit.r t5 r,cars orde r is ol 0 t.06.20 l0 and thc ,\ppcal Sincr. tlrt' irnltrrgned \\ irs t'ilcd on )3.O7.2O10, tl'ris Court is of thc firm vier,v thar r.clr,rrlv r"r.ould also dcmand tltat thc Appeal be clismissed

13. C.M.A. No.6OB of 20 lO, along vvith i ll c:rrrnecred applications, rs ar:cordinglt, clismissed. ),4. [,terirn ord.rs, il'an-]', s.r.,c eL.cl crccpL * il.l r r.r,gur cl to the stal' ol the pror:ccclings, shall s[ancl v:rcaLcd. 6 _ .-:_q

15. The document dated 12.O9.2025 filed by the appellarrt with regard to the deposit ol Rs.2,00,O00/- before the Registrar of this Courl is taken on record. The respondent shall bc at liberty to rn,ithdrau, the said amount. There shall be no order as to costs SD/. P.CH.NAGABH USHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER The Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. One CC to SRl. VENKAT RAGHU RAMULU Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. B CHANDRASEN REDDY Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 J 4 PSL M 't.-"-*- '''; S'f qft iJ ) , -i.r ,.--t) -1- tll,11 rIffi ,,./ HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.608 of 2010 DISMISSING THE CMA I i I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 608 OF 2010 Between: G.SHIVA KUMAR, S/o.late G.Somaiah Govt Employee Rio.H.No.1-4-83, Gandhi Road, Sadashivpet, Medak District. . APPELLANT AND SI\4T VIJAYA LAXMI, D/o. M. P.Chenveeraiah Govt Teacher R/o.lvlarikamba Colony, [CCl Colony], Tandoor, Ranga Reddy District RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in O.P.No.28 of 2007 , dt.01.06.2010. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Petrtion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Lohit Konda, Advocate for the Respondent. That this Court doth order and Dccree as follows: l- That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed. l- fhat the document dt.12.09.2025 filed by the appellant u'iLh regard to the deposit ol I{s-2.00,000'- befbre the Registrar of this Court is taken on lecord. .1. That the respondellt shall be at liberty to withdravy the said amount 4. That there shall be no order as to costs. S P H.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR s,E cro o+f lLeL To I . The Senior Clivil Judge. Sanga Reddy L T rvo CD Copics psl W HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 DECREE CMA.No.608 of 2010 DISMISSING THE CMA 1 1A 1/' \o