The High Court · 2025

Sri. M. Naveen Employee R/o. 11-3-263, New s/o. M. Narayana Age. 41, Occ. Private ally, Hyderabad - 500001 NIII' Smt. E ! TETI Petition under Section 1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.673 of 202'l on the file of Addl. Family Judge, Rangareddy. Smt. Methari Sushma, w/o M Naveen Chakravarthy Age. 36, Occ. Software Engineer R/o. 11-9-321, Flat No. 310, Sunris-e-Ap-artments, Lakshminagar Co-lony, Road no 4, Kothapet, Hyderabad - 500035 EI'TD Sri. M. Naveen Chakravarthy, s/o. M. Narayana Age. 41, Occ. Private Employee R/o. 11-3-263, New Mallepally, Hyderabad - 500001 RespondenUCivil Revision Petitioner Petition u rder section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the aftidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 1BtOTt2025 passed in C.R.p. No. 226-g of 2025, by dismissring the above civil Revision petition, with costs, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition urrder section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in.the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to advance the datr: of hearing lrom22l08l2o25 and fix an early date for'hearing of the above C.R.P. No. 2268 ot 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S S R MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent SRI CHEKURI YADAGIRI The Court made the following: ORDER ,,j.. 1i,,,.,. i,tLiJir* ITON'BLE SRI JUS'I'ICE ABIIINAND KUMAR ST{AVILI C.R.P.No.2268 of 2025 ORDER: l'his Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in t.A.No.44l of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.673 of 2021 on the file of Aclditional Family (lourt, Ranga Reddy District at I..B.Nagar.

2. t'leard Sri S.S.R. Murthy, leartred counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the rcspondent.

3. It has bcen contended b,v the pctitioncr that the resp()ndent has filed divorcc O.l). in lj.C.O.t'}. 67i ot'2021 on the alteged ground of cruelty and lbr dissolution ol' nrarriage under Section 13 (l) (ib) of the l{indu N{arriagc Act. 1956; that when the evidence therein was closed, thc pctitioner has filed the subject l.A.No.44l of 2025 under Order VII Rule lA (3) read r,r,ittr Section 151 CPC to receivc ccrtain documents so as to cnable the trial Cou( to adjudicatc tht: ntattcr. { : 2 AKS..I (1. R.P.No.2268 r.rt' 20?_5 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner had ccintencled that one o[ the allegations levered by the respondent in a divorce casc is that the petitioner is an impotent. To prove that allegation made b1' the respondent as false, the petitioner warrted to file photo copies of Office Visit Summary at the Associated urologists of North carolina, pA (ALTNC) by the Urologist dated 26-01-2ct22, Semen Anarysis at carorina conceptions, pA darcd 02-05-2c'22 and Male Hormone Testosterone at Lab Corp datecr 23-12-2a 19, l8- t2-2020 and 24-01-2022. But rhe rrial court has dismisscrj the said applicatio, without appr-eciating any crf- rhc contenticns raised by the petitioner.

5. Learned counser for the petitior-rer. had rurrhcr conr.ended that il'only the documents are marked, thc trial Court.s ef-l'ective ad.iudication wiil take prace. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the ltevision by setting aside the orders or.the trial courr in I.A.No.44 r of 202s in l'cop No.673 of.202r cratcd 24-06-2025 and further direct the trial court to perrnit the petitioner to rnark the documents which can be errcrosed aro,_r1 with l.A.lrlo.44 I of 2025 lbr better appreciation. :':t:i .ii.i:. -.tii:,1!.rtr J AKS.J C.R.P.No.2268 o12025

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the documents sought to be marked by the petitioner cannot be marked and that the trial Coum has rightly dismissed the application as the said documents have no relevance for the case on hand and that the petitioner nowhere stated about the existence of the said documents in the petitions filed earlier. The respondent has filed divorce petition mainly on the ground of cruelty and it is for the respondent to prove the alleging cruelty -fherefore, there are no merits in the Revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court having considered thc rival submissions 1 : rrrade by' the learned counsel lor both thc partics, is o[ the f ! considered view that the trial Court has rightly disrnissed the application iri I.A.No.44l of 2025 in IrCOP No.673 of, 2021 dated 24-06-2025 as the documents which are sougltt to be ntarked by' thc petitioner have no relevance and are only photo copics, down loaded tiom the internet. Anyhow, the allcgations leveled by the rcspondent have to be proved by thc rcsponclcnt herscll'in thc ntain case. Therefore, sinbe initial burden lies on the respondent 4 AKS..l (.lt. l).No.22('8 ol' 2(,1.5 to prove '.he guilt/cruelty of the petitioner and then orily the main case will be decided, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer fiom any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this Court do,:s not incline to interfere with the orders passed by the lrial Court and there{irre, the Civil Revision petition is tiable to be dismissecl

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismisse<I. No costs

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if an,v, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD'. A JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Family Judge, Rangareddy. 2. One CC tr Sri S S R Murthy, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC tc Sri Chekuri Yadagiri, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK TK5 HIGH COURT DATED: 1910912025 ORDER CRP.No.2268 of 2025 DISMISSING TI{E CRP WITHOUT COSTS C; /rt^ t * 'l ft': 2 4 JAll 2026 prrcttlil, "' .

Sri. M. Naveen Employee R/o. 11-3-263, New s/o. M. Narayana Age. 41, Occ. Private ally, Hyderabad - 500001 NIII' Smt. E ! TETI Petition under Section 1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.673 of 202'l on the file of Addl. Family Judge, Rangareddy. Smt. Methari Sushma, w/o M Naveen Chakravarthy Age. 36, Occ. Software Engineer R/o. 11-9-321, Flat No. 310, Sunris-e-Ap-artments, Lakshminagar Co-lony, Road no 4, Kothapet, Hyderabad - 500035 EI'TD Sri. M. Naveen Chakravarthy, s/o. M. Narayana Age. 41, Occ. Private Employee R/o. 11-3-263, New Mallepally, Hyderabad - 500001 RespondenUCivil Revision Petitioner Petition u rder section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the aftidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 1BtOTt2025 passed in C.R.p. No. 226-g of 2025, by dismissring the above civil Revision petition, with costs, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition urrder section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in.the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to advance the datr: of hearing lrom22l08l2o25 and fix an early date for'hearing of the above C.R.P. No. 2268 ot 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S S R MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent SRI CHEKURI YADAGIRI The Court made the following: ORDER ,,j.. 1i,,,.,. i,tLiJir* ITON'BLE SRI JUS'I'ICE ABIIINAND KUMAR ST{AVILI C.R.P.No.2268 of 2025 ORDER: l'his Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in t.A.No.44l of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.673 of 2021 on the file of Aclditional Family (lourt, Ranga Reddy District at I..B.Nagar.

2. t'leard Sri S.S.R. Murthy, leartred counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the rcspondent.

3. It has bcen contended b,v the pctitioncr that the resp()ndent has filed divorcc O.l). in lj.C.O.t'}. 67i ot'2021 on the alteged ground of cruelty and lbr dissolution ol' nrarriage under Section 13 (l) (ib) of the l{indu N{arriagc Act. 1956; that when the evidence therein was closed, thc pctitioner has filed the subject l.A.No.44l of 2025 under Order VII Rule lA (3) read r,r,ittr Section 151 CPC to receivc ccrtain documents so as to cnable the trial Cou( to adjudicatc tht: ntattcr. { : 2 AKS..I (1. R.P.No.2268 r.rt' 20?_5 4- Learned counsel for the petitioner had ccintencled that one o[ the allegations levered by the respondent in a divorce casc is that the petitioner is an impotent. To prove that allegation made b1' the respondent as false, the petitioner warrted to file photo copies of Office Visit Summary at the Associated urologists of North carolina, pA (ALTNC) by the Urologist dated 26-01-2ct22, Semen Anarysis at carorina conceptions, pA darcd 02-05-2c'22 and Male Hormone Testosterone at Lab Corp datecr 23-12-2a 19, l8- t2-2020 and 24-01-2022. But rhe rrial court has dismisscrj the said applicatio, without appr-eciating any crf- rhc contenticns raised by the petitioner.

5. Learned counser for the petitior-rer. had rurrhcr conr.ended that il'only the documents are marked, thc trial Court.s ef-l'ective ad.iudication wiil take prace. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the ltevision by setting aside the orders or.the trial courr in I.A.No.44 r of 202s in l'cop No.673 of.202r cratcd 24-06-2025 and further direct the trial court to perrnit the petitioner to rnark the documents which can be errcrosed aro,_r1 with l.A.lrlo.44 I of 2025 lbr better appreciation. :':t:i .ii.i:. -.tii:,1!.rtr J AKS.J C.R.P.No.2268 o12025

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the documents sought to be marked by the petitioner cannot be marked and that the trial Coum has rightly dismissed the application as the said documents have no relevance for the case on hand and that the petitioner nowhere stated about the existence of the said documents in the petitions filed earlier. The respondent has filed divorce petition mainly on the ground of cruelty and it is for the respondent to prove the alleging cruelty -fherefore, there are no merits in the Revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court having considered thc rival submissions 1 : rrrade by' the learned counsel lor both thc partics, is o[ the f ! considered view that the trial Court has rightly disrnissed the application iri I.A.No.44l of 2025 in IrCOP No.673 of, 2021 dated 24-06-2025 as the documents which are sougltt to be ntarked by' thc petitioner have no relevance and are only photo copics, down loaded tiom the internet. Anyhow, the allcgations leveled by the rcspondent have to be proved by thc rcsponclcnt herscll'in thc ntain case. Therefore, sinbe initial burden lies on the respondent 4 AKS..l (.lt. l).No.22('8 ol' 2(,1.5 to prove '.he guilt/cruelty of the petitioner and then orily the main case will be decided, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer fiom any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this Court do,:s not incline to interfere with the orders passed by the lrial Court and there{irre, the Civil Revision petition is tiable to be dismissecl

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismisse<I. No costs

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if an,v, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD'. A JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Family Judge, Rangareddy. 2. One CC tr Sri S S R Murthy, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC tc Sri Chekuri Yadagiri, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK TK5 HIGH COURT DATED: 1910912025 ORDER CRP.No.2268 of 2025 DISMISSING TI{E CRP WITHOUT COSTS C; /rt^ t * 'l ft': 2 4 JAll 2026 prrcttlil, "' .