DAMARLA JYOTHI v. KODIDASU UDAYA BABU AT UDAYA SIVA NAGA BABU
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: RAVI NATH TILHARI,NYAPATHY VIJAY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-01-10. DAMARLA JYOTHI v. KODIDASU UDAYA BABU AT UDAYA SIVA NAGA BABU. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY l■A■No■2 of 2025 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 632 of 2024 Between: Damarla Jyothi, W/o. Kodidasu Udaya Babu, Age 30 years. R/o. D. No. 16-22. Damarlavari Street, Ipurupalem, Chirala Mandal Bapatia District. ... Petitioner/Appellant AND Kodidasu Udaya Babu @ Udaya Siva Naga Babu, S/o. late Sambasiva Rao, Age 38 years, R/o. D. No. 7-369, Behind Sri Gopala Krishna Theater, Near Ramalayam, Mangalagiri, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. ... Respondent/ Respondent Petition under Section 114 R/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to review the order dated 1. 1G. 2024 in i CMA. No. 632 of 2024. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N.
Bharath Simha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. I. A. No. 2 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant-wife for review of our judgment dated 01. 10. 2024 in C. M. A. No. 632 of 2024 by which the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. On 01. 10. 2024, this appeal was dismissed on the ground that, since the appellant consented for grant of divorce, parties also compromised and the wife had also withdrawn the settled amount, the appeal was not maintainable. observing that no appeal lies against the consent decree. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the divorce decree could not be granted on compromise or consent. In such matters the consent IS i: immaterial. He placed reliance in Sanjeeta Das v. Tapan Kumar Mohanty {2010 AIR sew 5683}. So, it is submitted that the judgment dated 01. 10. 2024 suffers from error apparent and deserves to be reviewed.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 6. In Sanjeeta Das (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the Hindu Marriage can be dissolved only on any of the grounds plainly and clearly enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short ‘the Act’). The law does not permit the purchase of a decree of divorce for consideration, with or without the consent of the other side unless the si contesting parties proceed under Section 13B of the Act. i 7. Para Nos. 5 to 7 of Sanjeeta Das (supra) are as follows: it purported to grant “5. These two orders passed by the High Court, by which marriage with the a decree of divorce for dissolution of the respondent's we are unable to appellant are now before us in appeal and plainly speaking marriage between the put any meaning to the order of the High Court. The in accordance with respondent and the appellant was admittedly solemnized dissolved only on any of the Hindu religious rites.
A Hindu marriage can be 13 of the Hindu the grounds plainly and clearly enumerated under Section of a decree of divorce Marriage Act. The law does not permit the purchase other side. for consideration, with or without the consent of the us not to interfere in 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged lived the matter submitting that the respondent and the appellant had marriage had taken place together barely for four months. He stated that the separately. He on April 29, 1994 and from August 24, 1994 they are living was passed with the also tried to argue that the order of the High Court Court should not interfere consent of the parties and for that reason also this for a moment. in the matter. We are not prepared to accept the submission was passed with the consent First, there is nothing to indicate that the order as under: of the appellant.
All that is said in the order is of the learned counsel "On consideration of such affidavit and the submission with the following appearing for the parties, we dispose both these appeals directions" (Emphasis added) 7. The affidavit referred to in the order is the one filed by the respondent and does not indicate that consideration of submission of counsel for the parties of her marriage with the the appellant had given her consent for dissolution lakhs only). respondent on payment of Rs. 10,00,000. 00 (rupees ten parties is of no relevance Secondly, and more importantly, the consent of the dissolve a Hindu marriage in the matter. No court can assume jurisdiction to grounds the basis of the consent of the parties de hors the simply on enumerated under Section 13 of the Act, unless of course the consenting parties proceed under Section 13B of the Act. ” wife consented for 8.
The appeal was dismissed, considering only that, the the amount, so divorce after the compromise and accepting and withdrawing not considered. The the appeal was not maintainable. Any other aspect was grant of divorce was on merits. So appeal was maintainable. 9. I. A. No. 2 of 2025 is allowed. We recall the order dated 01. 10. 2024. CMA. No. 632 of 2024 is restored to original number. Sd/- S. V. S. R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S^ION OFFICER To Guntur District. 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalagiri, 2. One CC to Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TK sre HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER I. A. No. 2 of 2025 in CMA. No. 632 of 2024 S 13 MAS M25 Uurrwti Mciion ^ ALLOWING THE APPLICATION
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.