Between vs And on 28 April, 2026

    0
    33
    ADVERTISEMENT

    (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

    Heard Sri K. A. Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri

    SPONSORED

    Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the respondent.

    2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

    3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2004

    in HMOP.No.64 of 2002 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional

    District Judge, Tirupati, by which the HMOP filed by the appellant/husband

    seeking divorce under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was

    dismissed.

    4. The appellant and the respondent were married on 05.02.1992 as per

    the Hindu rites and customs. They have one male child. Due to some

    differences and disputes between them, initially the divorce OP.No.113 of 1999

    was filed by the husband, whereas the wife filed OP.No.114 of 1999 for

    restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The

    wife had already filed maintenance case MC No.35 of 1995 against the

    husband, which was allowed awarding the maintenance to the wife and also to

    the son. O.P.Nos.113 and 114 of 1999 were decided by the common Order

    dated 12.07.2001, the petition for divorce was dismissed and the petition for

    restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The contention of the husband is
    RNT, J & MRK, J

    that the wife failed to join the husband and there was no restitution of conjugal

    rights pursuant to the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.114 of

    1999 for a period of one year and hence he filed HMOP No.64 of 2002 seeking

    divorce under Section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here