High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affUavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OP.No.59/2012 on the file of Family Court Judge, cum lli Additional District Judge, Warangal, and Pending disposal of{tre CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY C.R.P.N 0.2272 ot 2018 Petition under Article 227 ol the constitution of lndia against the order dated22-02-2018passedinl.A.|.lo.129ol2017ino.P.No.s(|lf2012onthefile of the court of the Judge Family court-cum-lll Additior rl District Judge, Warangal. Between: GoneNaveenKumar,s/o.VenkatramNarsaiah,{/o'HNo'1122636' Kashibugga, Warangal ..1) ltitionerlPetitioner AND Gone Nikhitha , Sirsala Ralani, Wo.Gone Naveen. Kumat , d6.Veni.;i;;n*iriu, nvo.H.u<i.2-1 -90, saraswathi Nagar, Gopalpur road' Hanamkonda, warangal ...Respc ndenUResPondnet lA NO: 1 oF 2018 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the cir<;r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nay be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the lA No.128 of 2)11 in oP No.59 of 2012 dated 22.02.2018 in the court of the Judge Family corr t cum lll Additional District Judge, Warangal pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDI) f The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I j IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELITNGANA AT I{YDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVI REVISION PETITION Nos.1946 &2272 of 2018 24t\ day of November,2o25 Between: Crone Naveen Kumar Gone Nikhitha @ Sirsa,la Rajani. ...Petitioner/Petitioner ...Respondent/Respoodent COMMON ORDER Since these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of tlre same co[lmon order, out of the same O.P, between the same parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri J. Venkateshwar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent. Perused the material on record.

3. The C.R.P.Nos.l946 and 2272 of 2018 are filed assailing the conmon order dated 22.02.2018 in I.A.Nos. 129 and l2E of 2017 m i i ) NNR'J ckP.Nos.Iglt 2272ol20l8 O.P.No.59 of 2012 Passed bY the learned Judge, Farr lY Court' Warangal. erein hled 1 iissolution 017 before earlier the 17 was [rled l0l7 Passed plication for en Coufi in

4. The brief facts ofthe case ar€ that the petitioner I a petition in O'P'No'59 of 2012 against respondent fo' of their marriage' It is peftinent to mention that' petitioner herein filed C'R'P'Nos'2903 and 3047 of I this Court, seeking to set aside the orders dated 01'05 ' in I.A.Nos'128 and 129 of 201'l 'The I'ANo'128 of 2C to re-open the O'P' to enable the petitioner to file an z obtaining sample writings of the respondent in c 1 accordance with the contents of Ex'A5 diary and I 2017 is filed under Section 45 ttw 73 of Indian Ev obtain sample writings of the respondent in the r accordance with contents of Ex'A5 and send the Writing Expert, FSL' Hyderabad along with Ex'A5 or companson of writings and submit report and the same were I llowed by this and the matters were rernande 1 to the Family Court on 2l'07 '2017 Court, Warangal for consideration of I'A'Nos 128 I nd I 29 of 2017 afresh. The leamed Judge has dismissed the petitio' s on the ground that the petitioner failed to say how he has obtaine t Ex A5 personal A.No. t29 of pen Couft in ,ame to Hand dcnce Act to 3 I,INRJ CkP,Nos.l916 &. 2272 of 20IE diary from RWI as there are disputes between them since 2012 and why he has not taken any plea on Ex.A5 in pleadings or in his evidence for his divorce. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

5. Learned cormsel for the petitioner contended that as the said plea was already taken by the petitioner herein and they also submitted chief--affidavit, which shows that the said pleas were taken by the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent did not deny the diary, which is also marked as Ex.A5, though denying some portion of the hand writing, as seen from the observation of tlre leamed Judge, whether hand writing has to be sent to the Forensic Science taboratory for comparison or not, the order of the trial Court without disputing on that, has gone into the aspect of assumptions and presumptions and also discussed the aspects which were beyond the scope ol the petition and pleadings that by expressing his personal opinion on thc same as the same is not presumable, the leamed Judge on the ground though came to a conclusion that pleadings ar€ not made in the petition or in the affidavit. [n fact, it is pointed out by the leamed revision petitioner that the said pleadings were already taken by the petitioner in his 4 NNf'J C.RP.N65 '916 & 2272 of20I8 pleadings. On perusal of the entire orders passed by t re trial Court' the respondent/victim contended that there is nc necessity for sending Ex.A5 for exPert oPinion'

6. Having regardto the contentions raised by th: petitioner and at that point of time the respondent clearly denied 'hat she never maintained any diary and earlier it is held that the espondent not deniedthecontentsofthediaryi.e.,Ex.A5.Toputrquietustothe litigation, this Court is of the opinion that if the sl d document is sent for expert opinion no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

7. With the above observation, these Civil R': 'ision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the common order dat: I 22'02'2018 in I.A.Nos.129 and 128 of 2017 in O'P'No'59 of 20t l passed by the leamed Judge, Famity Court, Warangal and conse < uently' thc said I.As are allowed. The trial Court is further direclt d to reopen the evidence o[ revision petitioner and proceed in acco dance with law' Further, the respondent shall appear before the trial Couft and fumish her hand writing samples in the ope r Coun and on fumishing the same, the trial Court is directed I I take steps for \ I I i i 5 N/Vtr'J Cx.P.Nos.I916 & 2272 of 20l8 sending the admitted signatures of the respondent along with the said diary/Ex.A5 to Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed. Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR L7 SECTION OFFICER /TTRUE COPY// To

1. The Judge Family Court-Cum-lll Additional District Judge' Warangal 2. One CC to SRI J. VENIGTESWARA REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 3 One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY' Advocate {OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/PR HIGH COURT DATED:24l1112025 oY i 'ilE'S f4 () t ?, Jtr 2m ,z i) COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1946 and 2272 of 2018 ALLOWING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISIOh PETITIONS 9,