The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine nign Court may be pleased to Suspend the Decree and Order dated. 25.03.2023 passed in lrri.O.p.No. 07 of 2022on the file of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of First Appeal. counsel for the Appeilant : sRr. KRISHNA KtsHoRE KowuRt counsel for the Respondent : sRr CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV The Gourt delivered the following: JUDMGMENT I .- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY APPEAL SUIT No.645 OF 2024 ORDER This appeal suit is filed aggrieved bv the order-dated 25.O3.2023 passed in M.O.P.No.7 of 2022 on ttre file of the Corrrt of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem('the Court' lirr brevity) whereby whereunder the application filed b), the respondent rvas allowed and the decree of divorce was granted.

2. Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kowuri, learnecl counsel for the appellant and Ms. Poornima, learned counsel, representing Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant woulcl submit that the appellant and respondent are hustrand and wife zrnd their rnarriage was solemntzed on O1.05.2OO5 at CPM Party Ol-lice, Bhadrachalam and out of their wedlock they were blessed with t'uto children. Respondent filed M.O.P.No.7 of 2022 before AEl,r:nt to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, seeking dissolution of marriage. When the matter was taken up for hearing on O L.O7.2022, tlre Court has passed order directing the DWO to conduct family counst-ling and the same is adjournecl to 15.7O.2O22 and on I5.1O.2O22, a rep<trt from Sakhi was 2 LNA, J A.S.N<t.645 of 2024 received and the matter was adjourned to 03.o3.2023 and on that day the petitioner and respondent were present and the Court once again passed order to conduct re-counseling to both the parties and to be Iisted on 25.03.2023. Further, on the same day i.e., 03.o3.2023, one more order is passed to the effect that based on Sakhi report clecree of divorce was granted with an observation that both parties are living separately for the period of 11 years.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the court has not followed any procedure and has passed two contradictory orders on the same day. He would further submit that the Court has not recorded any reason for granting decree of divorce except saying that report of Sakhi is received that both parties are living separately for a period of 11 years which is per-se unsustainable, as the impugned order passed by any court or quasi-judicial authority has to be a reasoned order, however, no such exercise has been done. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be setaside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the application filed by the respondent would clearly show that respondent was being harassed and also physically tortured by the petitioner and the respondent is a Government Teacher whereas the J LNA, J .4.\ No.645 of 2024 petitioner is unemployed and he is not taking car,3 of children and respondent and she was forced to reside with her pirrents. Therefore, the court has rightly decreed the M.o.p., since the rnarriage has been broken. FIc: would further submit that in so far as the contention of the petitioner, that two conflicting orders were;iasse,:t on the same clay is concernect, it might be a typographicar error, sin<:e, on 03.o3.2023, the court tras passed order for conducting re-courseling and posted the matter l.o 25.o3 .2023 and on 2s.o3.2023, the dcr:ree of divorce wers passed. Howerrer, in docket proceedings, the datr: is mentioned as

03.o3.2023 instead of 25.o3.2023 and therefore, preyed to dismiss the appeal. 6- A pet'usal of record would reveal that there is no discussion on the pleadings and merits of the case and further, no reasons have been recorde<i rvhile passing decree except referring to salchi report.

7. In r:zLtena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex (lourt and various High courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a'l'ribunal shall record reasons for its c,cnclusions. 4 LNA, J A.5.No.645 o.f 2024

8. rn M/s Kranti Associates Put. Ltd. & Anr as Masood. Ahmed Khan & orsl, the Honble Supreme court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below. "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to recorcl reasons, even in administrative decisions, if. such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on record.ing of reasons is meant to servc the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (0 Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. r (2010) 9 scc 496 5 LNA, J 4.:;.L'o.645 oJ 2024 All these decisions serye one common purpose u,hich is to <lemonstrate by reason that the relevant factors h.ve been .Lrjectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. fi) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial ac <:oun tability and transparency. {l<) Il' a jr-rdge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid <:nouglt abotrt his/her decision-making proCess then it is irnpossible to kno'*' whether the person clecicri.lg is faithful to t he cloctrine of prececlent or to principles of in<:rementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasorls or ,ntltber_stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decisi,rn- maki,g Process. (nr) lt cannot be doubted trrat transparency is tr_.e sine qua non ol restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision_making not only makes the judges alrcr decision makers less prone to errors but arso reakes them sr-rbje<:t to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro i. Defence of Juclicial candor (r987) 1o0 Harvard Law Revieu, 7'-tr-7371;

9. Following the principles laid down by the Hon,ble supreme court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High C.urt of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and printing lvorks vs. state of Gujarat q.nd. others2 observed as under:- "At the olrtset, we notice that it is settled legal position of larv that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non commtrnication of same itself arnounts to denial ol'reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of'.justice. 2 2022 SCC Online Guj 2530 6 LNA, J A.5.No.645 ot'2024

10. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decision mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent appreciation of evidehce adduced and the documents produced in the case. 1 1. [n the present case, perusal of the order passed by the Agent to Government disclose that except referring to the Sakhi report there is no appreciation of pleadings, evidence and further no reasons have been recorded while passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Agent to Government is cryptic and there is no application of mind on the part of Agent to Government.

12. In light of the above discussion and legal position, the impugned order dated 25.03.2023, passed in M.O.P.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

13. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.03.2023, passed in M.O.P.No.7 of 2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Agent to Government for fresh adjudication. Since, the matter is of the year 2022, the Agent to 7 LNA, J .4.\.No.645 of 2024 Government shall make endeavor to dispose of the l{.o.p No.7 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible by duly affording opporlunity of hearing to both the parties. No costs. Pending rniscella.eous applicettions, if any, sh.ll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.'V. S. S.C.S. M.SARMA NT REG I N OFFICER To,

1. The Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem Distriot 2. one cc to sRt. KRISHNA KrsHoRE KowuRt Advocate topucl 3. one cc to sRt. CHALAKAN! VENKAT YADAV Advocab topucl 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:0l 1082025 JUDGMENT AS.No.645 ot 2024 F .c Ht:s 1 3 t',0d ?ilfi * - .-. , r."'- t.,.;t) -:2i2' - ALLOWING THB APPEAL c*dd $.s'r