Posts

Showing posts from July, 2015

Sec.25 of Hindu Marriage Act = even after a decree of divorce, permanent alimony can be granted to the spouse who has applied for it unless the conduct of the spouse is abominable; and that mere desertion of the spouse would not amount to abominable conduct. It is only if the conduct of the petitioner is abominable, would this Court be required to consider whether, and to what extent, such conduct would have an effect on the grant of permanent alimony. The word abominable means odious, offensive. The conduct of both the parties before, during the pendency of proceedings, and after filing the present petition is relevant. The material on record does show that the petitioner has made serious allegations against her husband. She filed a criminal case against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. She also threatened to commit suicide. While her conduct is not beyond reproach, is it such as to disentitle her from being granted permanent alimony? -2015 A.P.(1977) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.25 of Hindu Marriage Act = even after a decree of divorce, permanent alimony can be granted to the spouse who has applied for it unless the conduct of the spouse is abominable; and that mere desertion of the spouse would not amount to abominable conduct. It is only if the conduct of the petitioner is abominable, would this Court be required to consider whether, and to what extent, such conduct would have an effect on the grant of permanent alimony. The word abominable means odious, offensive. The conduct of both the parties before, during the pendency of proceedings, and after filing the present petition is relevant. The material on record does show that the petitioner has made serious allegations against her husband. She filed a criminal case against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. She also threatened to commit suicide. While her conduct is not beyond reproach, is it such as to disentitle her from being granted permanent alimony? -2015 A.P.(1977) MSKLAW…

Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 789 in preferring the appeal against the preliminary decree = it is hard to digest his explanation that on account of migrating to Chennai in search of his livelihood he could not meet to counsel within time and failed to file the appeal. His very participation in the final decree proceedings exposes fallacity of his explanation. Even assuming for argument sake that he was in Chennai during the relevant period on account of employment, when he found time to meet the counsel and contest the final decree proceedings, there was no reason he could not file appeal which is more important an exercise in time. Though liberal approach is required, it shall not be extravagancy.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Civil Revision Petition No.2647 of 2015

16-07-2015

Majji Somulu @ Swamy naidu. Petitioner/Appellant

Majji Nagaraju @ Nagesh and three others Respondents/Respondents    

Counsel for Petitioner  : Sri Suresh Kumar Pusarla

Counsel for Respondent:--

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO        

Civil Revision Petition No.2647 of 2015

ORDER:
        The petitioner/defendant No.1 seeks to set aside the order
dt:09.02.2015 in I.A.No.292 of 2014 in unnumbered Appeal Suit No of
2014 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam dismissing the
application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of
789 in preferring the appeal against the preliminary decree in O.S.No.59 of
2006 passed by Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa.
2)      The petitioner who is the first defendant and other defendants suffered
preliminary decree in a partition suit. Aggrieved, it appears the p…

Disobedience of an order of court, whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex-parte or upon hearing both parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into disrespect or disregard Sri Syed Maqbool Raza, (the fourth respondent-Panchayat Secretary) has aided and abetted Sri J.Narayan Goud (the 7th respondent- Sarpanch) in proceeding with construction in utter disregard for the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009. He shall be detained in civil prison for a period of one month and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- within four weeks from today failing which he shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of three days. Sri J. Narayan Goud (the 7th respondent Sarpanch) has not only flouted the order of this Court but has also continued with and completed construction of the building in open defiance of the order of this Court. He has, by his brazen acts of obstruction of administration of justice, made a mockery of the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009. He shall, therefore, be detained in civil prison for a period of two months and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- within four weeks from today, failing which he shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of three days. As required under Rule 32(1) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980, respondents 3, 4, 7 and 11 shall be entitled to subsistence allowance, in accordance with their status, during the period of their detention in civil prison. The subsistence allowance for respondents 3 and 11 is fixed at Rs.1,000/- per day, and for respondents 4 and 7 at Rs.750/- per day. The State Government shall bear the cost of the subsistence allowance payable to respondents 3, 4, 7 and 11.

http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=12817


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM                    

CONTEMPT CASE No.933 of 2009    

17-07-2015

K.Mallaiah and others..Petitioners    

Sandeep Kumar Sultania and others. .Respondents  

Counsel for the petitioners:Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy

Counsel for respondents:  Sri G. Narender Reddy, Smt. C. Vani
                           Reddy, Sri G. Anandam, G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural
                           Development, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, G.P. for School
                           Education, Standing Counsel for TG-MPPS GPPS,
Advocate
                           General (Telangana).

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Citations:

1)      (2012) 1 SCC 273
2)      (2006) 5 SCC 1
3)      (1980) 3 SCC 311
4)      (2003) 1 SCC 644
5)      1972(1) All.E.R 997
6)      2002(4) SCC 21
7)      (2008) 14 SCC 561
8)      1995 Cri.L.J.1261 (Punjab & Haryana HC DB
9)      1967(…