Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Paras 16 and 17,

16. Applying the above stated legal position to the facts of the case on hand, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The statement of the petitioners on oath that they are living separately since 3 days after the marriage, that the same was not consummated and that they had no mental stress in arriving at a conclusion to separate and on the contrary, continuing their relationship causes mental trauma and agony are the factors which weigh to exercise discretion in their favour for waiving the period of one year and the case on hand fall in the category of exceptional hardship as continuance of marriage would be more traumatic than dissolution of the same.
17. Further, the learned Trial Judge instead of examining the specific case of the petitioners herein with reference to the averments made in the affidavit in I.A.No.20 of 2022, based its Order on Savanam Giridhar Reddy‟s case referred to supra arising in a different fact situation and the reasoning in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel aptly applies to the instant case.

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on February 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A perverse order passed by the AP High Court, totally bypassing the intent of the Apex Court is prescribing the guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha decision here.

From Paras 6-7,

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below erred in allowing the petition even without filing the statement of assets and liabilities and further that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner and yet, sought maintenance, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. It is also submitted by him that without there being any evidence of income of the petitioner, the Court below granted interim maintenance of exorbitant amount, which is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others1, wherein at paragraph No.99, it was held as follows:
“99. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.”
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement. He further submitted that the petitioner herein did not dispute his income in the counter filed by him and further, after considering the facts and allegations submitted on both sides, the impugned order was passed by the Court below, and therefore, the same does not require any interference.

From Paras 9-11,

9. The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground.
10. As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
11. Insofar as the question of desertion by the respondent herein is concerned, it is a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there is no material on record to support the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner as contended.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Index of all maintenance cases is here.

Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma and Anr Vs Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah on 21 Dec 2004

Posted on December 23, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Following his own decision here, Justice S.R.K. Prasad of AP High Court, held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Adverting to the same, I have perused the record.
The contention of the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners presented the written arguments, appears to be correct. The Rent Control Appellate Court has failed to consider the written arguments presented on behalf of landlords before the Court. This Court has observed at Paragraph 6 in the decision referred above which is as follows:
“I have perused the written arguments. None of the contentions raised in the written arguments are considered. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Patna High Court have been cited in the written arguments. The same does not find place in the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. The lower Appellate Court shall keep in mind that written arguments are submitted not for fancy sake. It is a right conferred by the statue to a party to submit the written arguments which are meant for consideration and adjudication. No Court shall ignore the written arguments and refuse to consider the same. If it were to do so, they are liable for action by the Superior Courts. This is nothing short of judicial dishonesty. A Judge is not supposed to exhibit such dishonesty. A Judge is supposed to exhibit extreme patience and give long rope and hear arguments and then pronounce his
decision after adjudicating the matter. I find that this is a classic case where the Judge refused to consider the written arguments. He has not considered the decisions cited before him. In such cases, the judgment should not be upheld. It deserves to be set aside since no party can be allowed to leave the Court with dissatisfaction for non-consideration of his arguments. If such things were to happen, the litigant public certainly loses confidence in the judicial systems. I am of the considered view that the Appellate Court”s judgment shall not stand for judicial scrutiny before this Court for the learned Judge”s failure to consider the written arguments and adjudicate the matter in the light of the written arguments which lead to miscarriage of justice.”
The written arguments were not considered. One should remember that the Courts existed for rendering justice in accordance with law, but not in accordance whims and fancies. In case the material placed by the Counsel, is ignored, the litigant public who approaches the Courts with fond hope of getting justice, will lose confidence in the judicial system. Judges must keep in kind that it is their duty to go through the written arguments, advert to them and refer them in the course of the judgment by giving answers. In the present case, the written arguments are not adverted to. When the Judge does not mind through the written arguments and advert to the same in the judgment, it cannot be said that fair hearing has been given by the Judge. In such cases, the revisional authority has to correct the mistake committed by the Appellate Authority and the things have to be put in order. Two options are open for this Court viz., (1) the revisional Court has to take the burden of rehearing the entire matter and arrive at the conclusion and render the justice (2) the revisional Court has to send back the matter to the Appellate Judge for reconsideration.

Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma and Anr Vs Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah on 21 Dec 2004

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1249841/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f84de4b0149711141f93

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/930117-kamisetty-pedda-venkata-subbamma-and?s=Kamisetty%20Pedda%20Venkata%20Subbamma&refine_search=&s_acts=

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Posted on December 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. I have perused the written arguments. None of the contentions raised in the written arguments are considered. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Patna High Court have been cited in the written arguments. The same does not find place in the judgment of the appellate Tribunal. The lower appellate Court shall keep in mind that written arguments are submitted not for fancy sake. It is a right conferred by the statute to a party to submit the written arguments which are meant for consideration and adjudication. No Court shall ignore the written arguments and refuse to consider the same. If it were to do so, they are liable for action by the superior Courts. This is nothing short of judicial dishonesty. A judge is not supposed to exhibit such dishonesty. A judge is supposed to exhibit extreme patience and give long rope and hear arguments and then pronounce his decision after adjudicating the matter. I find that this is a classic case where the judge refused to consider the written arguments. He has not considered the decisions cited before him. In such cases, the judgment should not be upheld. It deserves to be set aside since no party can be allowed to leave the Court with dissatisfaction for non-consideration of his arguments. If such things were to happen, the litigant public certainly loses confidence in the judicial system. I am of the considered view that the appellate Court’s judgment shall not stand for judicial scrutiny before this Court for the learned Judge’s failure to consider the written arguments and adjudicate the matter in the light of the written arguments which lead to miscarriage of justice.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A No. 13 of 1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. It shall consider every point raised in the written arguments by traversing through the necessary material namely evidence including oral and documentary and give answer to every point and adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Tribunal on 1.4.2003. In view of the direction for their appearance, there is no need to issue a fresh notice to both the parties. Costs shall abide by the result of the appeal.

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Citations: [(2003) 02 AP CK 0073], [2003 (3) ALT 127], [2003 (1) LS 324]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17028650/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cbc607dba348ffee82e

https://lextechsuite.com/G-JAYA-RAO-VERSUS-STATE-OF-AP-2003-02-01

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/947782-g-jay-rao-vs-state

This was followed in this subsequent case here.

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma on 27 Jul 1998

Posted on October 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma on 27 Jul 1998 (CK)

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19292/

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000

Posted on July 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever on the part of the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. In refusing to furnish the certified copy of the docket sheet in Criminal Appeal Nos. 472 and 473 of 1999. After all the proceedings are not confidential but form an integral part of the judicial proceedings. The petitioner is undoubtedly entitled for the certified copy of the said proceedings.
4. In the circumstances, the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad is directed to supply the certified copies of the docket orders of the proceedings on payment of usual charges. The docket orders shall be furnished by tomorrow itself.

LQ Version

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000 (LQ Ver)

CM Version

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000 (CM Ver)

The Index is here.

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Posted on June 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows,

From Paras 102 and 103,

102. In view of the law as laid down by this Court in Marupudi Dhana Koteswara Rao (supra) that the authorities can seek NOC in case of renewal of passport which is implicit in Rule-5, with which view I am also in agreement that the renewal of passport is also governed by the provisions of the Passport Act, including Sections 5, 6 and the Rules, 1980, the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners to the contrary based on the view taken by the other High Courts is not acceptable and is rejected.
103. To sum up, this Court holds that;
(i) “Issue‟ of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes “renewal‟ of the passport as well;
(ii) While considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for “the first time‟, provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well;
(iii) In the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfillment of the condition under the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6;
(iv) In a case where clause (f) of Section 6 (2) is attracted, the holder of the passport, for its renewal, will have to produce an order from the Court concerned, where the proceedings against him are pending trial in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, permitting him to depart from India;
(v) The notification dated 25.08.1993 applies to the citizen applicants for renewal of the passport even if already departed from India under the passport of which renewal is sought.
(vi) On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial;
(vii) Condition (d) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 is an additional requirement and is not in substitution of the requirement from those citizen/applicants who have to produce an order of the Court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, permitting him to depart from India.

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Posted on February 28, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of AP High Court, relying on Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors here, held as follows,

In view of the principle laid down in Sangita Saha V. Abhijit Saha (2020 (3) SCC (Cri) 573), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the petitioner therein was unable to establish any incident of torture or demand for money or physical violence, she is not entitled for any maintenance, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order needs adjudication.

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144262882/

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Posted on December 16, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge allowed the marking of documents and examination via video conferencing tools.

From Para 2,

2. In the course of the trial of the case, the respondent had filed Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022 under Section 275(1) Cr.P.C and 285(3) of Cr.P.C to permit the respondent to mark documents and to depose before the Court of Trial via Skype or Blue Jeans or any other alternative electronic media and for costs. This application was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 31.03.2021 with certain conditions.

From Para 5,

5. Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Hima Bindu learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the application would be covered by the provisions of Section 273 of Cr.P.C and mere mentioning of a wrong provision in the order would not invalidate the order. She submits that Section 273 of Cr.P.C only stipulates that evidence taken during the course of trial should be in the presence of the accused and there is no restriction as to where the evidence can be recorded. She would further rely upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra vs Dr Praful B.Desai1. She contends, on the basis of the above Judgment, that recording of evidence by way of video conferencing is permissible and does not in any manner violate any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

From Para 9,

9. Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the right of cross examination of the petitioner has been forfeited by the trial Court, during the pendency of the present petition. If an order has been passed, the same shall be disregarded and the trial Court shall afford an opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner as and when the respondent makes necessary arrangements in terms of the order for being examined through video conference. For this purpose, the respondent shall be given two weeks from today to comply with the directions of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2022.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

The time limit to finish Cross Examination through Video conferencing was extended considering some difficulty.

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 11 Nov 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Posted on December 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Landmark judgment here, Single bench of AP HC held that,

From Para 6,

6. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to strictly comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This would include the requirement of the respondents uploading all the complaints registered by the respondents on to the website of the police authorities or the website of the State Government, in the absence of any website being maintained by the police authorities. There shall be no order as to costs.

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma and Anr Vs Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah on 21 Dec 2004

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy Vs Padmamma on 27 Jul 1998

Pfimex Pharmacauticals Limited Vs Garden Finance Ltd on 19 Jun 2000

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Komaravolu Sai Srinivas Vs Komaravolu Gayathri on 10 Oct 2022

Gogineni Lakshmi Gowthami Vs State of AP and Anr on 20 Oct 2022

Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022