APHC010186842008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL fFCA) NO: 16 OF 2008 Between: Madhula Kanaka Latha, W/o. M. Kasi Rao, Aged about 31 years, C/o. B. Maridi Raju, Police Constable, Door No. 55-4-137, Old Venkojipalem, H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent AND Madhula Kasi Rao, S/o. Late Subrahmanyam, Aged about 42 Junior Assistant, Office of Commissioner of Police, R/o. door No. 44.42.11, years Nandagiri Nagar, Visakhapatnam District. Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam, ...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner Appeal under section 19 of Family Courts Act, against the order passed m O.P.No. 441 of 2004 dated 1®* November, 2007 on the file of the Family Court Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Lower Court, and material papers in I i the petition and upon hearing arguments of Sri Rama Krishna A., for the Appellant, and Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri for the Respondent. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS: Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Two CD Copies To. SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 DECREE FCA No.16of 2008 andh^ f 21 M 2® m '3,^ Current Section °«PATC«^i^ DISMISSING THE F.C.A. WITHOUT COSTS X APHC010186842008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 16 OF 2008 Appeal under section 19 of Family Courts Act, against the order passed in O.P.No.441 of 2004 dated 1®* November, 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Madhula Kanaka Latha, W/o. M. Kasi Rao, Aged about 31 years, C/o. B. Maridi Raju, Police Constable, Door No. 55-4-137, Old Venkojipalem, H.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent AND Madhula Kasi Rao, S/o. Late Subrahmanyam, Aged about 42 years. Junior Assistant, Office of Commissioner of Police, R/o. Door No. 44.42.11, Nandagiri Nagar, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam District. Visakhapatnam, ...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner p ,/ Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Rama Krishna A Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri The Court made the following: // . / // APHC010186842008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [35?6] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO: 16 OF 2008 Between: 1.MADHULA KANAKA LATHA, W/0. M. KASI RAO, C/0. B. MARIDI RAJU, (POLICE CONSTABLE) DOOR NO. 55-4-137, OLD VENKOJIPALEM, H.B.COLONY, ...APPELLANT AND 1.MADHULA KASI RAO, S/o. Late Subrahmanyam, Junior Assistant, Office of Commissioner of Police, R/o. door No. 44.42.11, Nandagiri Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: I.Mr.RAMA KRISHNA A Counsel for the Respondent: I.Mr.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI ,7 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (perNJs.j) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the order dated 01.11.2007 in O.P.No.441 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 2) The appellant herein is the respondent in the said OP. Seeking to declare the marriage between the parties as null and void, the above said OP was filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the learried counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. The respondent instituted the O.P., referred to above inter alia stating that earlier he married one Revathi and blessed with two children, but she died on 21.02.1994 in a fire accident. Thereupon, he married the appellant herein on 25.12.1994, lived happily for a period of six (06) months and thereafter the appellant started ill-treating the children out of the 1 used to lead luxurious life and failed to look after the welfare of the children. Further, the respondent came to know that the 1®* marriage of the appellant, which was performed on 07.05.1993 was subsisting as on the date of the respondents marriage with her and as such, his marriage with the appellant performed on 25.12.1994 is null and void. The appellant filed her counter in O.P., admitting her first marriage dated 07.05.1993; that the respondent is aware of the same. Further, vide mutual agreement dated 15.11.1994, she got separated from the first husband 4) marriage. 5) 3 and obtained mutual divorce from him; that thereafter the marriage with the respondent herein was performed on 25.12.1994. She also stated that on 12.06.1995, the Family Court dissolved the marriage date 07.05.1993. It is t also pleaded that the respondent having kept the marriage tie for nearly eight (08) years filed the O.P. contrary to the principles of morality and humanity. Before the Family Court, in support of his case, the respondent got himself examined as PW 1 and on behalf of the appellant, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.BI to B8 documents were marked. The learned Family Judge formulated a point as to “Whether there are grounds to declare the 6) marriage between the parties as null and void”, examined the matter with reference to the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Family Judge recorded his conclusions in para 14, which reads as follows: “14. The evidence on record, therefore, establishes that except Ex.B.2 agreement, there is no document to show that the respondent obtained divorce from her first husband by the date of her marriage with the petitioner. Further there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that customary divorce is valid in the community of the respondent. It is significant to note that there is a sentence in Ex.B2 that both the parties agreed to obtain divorce from a Court of Law later. It may be noted that both the parties have obtained . decree of divorce by mutual consent on 12.06.1995 as per Ex.B.3, whereas the petitioner and respondent married on 25.12.1994 i.e., about six months prior to obtaining of divorce from the Court of law. Therefore, it is clear that the first marriage between the respondent and her first husband Ramana was duly subsisting by the date of the marriage between the parties to this O.R The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon a ruling of our High Court reported in Loya Padmaja alias Venakteswaramma v. Loya Veera Venkata Govindarajulu (AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 234), in which it was held: “...that the customary divorce is valid under Sec.29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act and hence second marriage is also valid.” ■ 4 7) Learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon this Court that the order under appeal is not sustainable. It is his contention that the appellant and the respondent after their marriage dated 25.12.1994 lived together for quite some time and the institution of the O.P. by the respondent after long marital life on the premise that as on the date of the 2^^ marriage, the 1®* marriage of the appellant was subsisting and as such the marriage dated 25.12.1994 between the parties is null and void, is unjust and untenable. Except making the said submission the learned counsel has not made out any case, more particularly on the basis of the material on record that as on the date of the marriage dated 25.12.1994, the 1®* marriage of the appellant was dissolved by virtue of the decree granted by a competent Court. On the other hand, as per the evidence adduced by the appellant, by the date of her 2"'^ marriage, a mutual agreement dated 15.11.1994 (Ex.B2) was entered into with her 1®* husband to live separately. Further, the decree for dissolution of the appellant’s first marriage dated 07.05.1993 with mutual consent was granted on 12.06.1995 (Ex.B3). Thus, it is an indelible fact that I ■ 8) nd as on the date of the appellant contacting the 2 marriage with the I respondent on 25.12.1994, her marriage dated 07.05.1993 was subsisting. Under the said circumstances, the order of the learned Family Judge declaring the 2^^ marriage dated 25.12.1994 as null and void is sustainable. Learned counsel’s further contention with reference to the respondent filing the earlier OP viz., OP No.217 of 2002, seeking same relief as sought in the present OP merits no consideration. No plea in this regard was raised in the counter. 5 9) On an appreciation of the submissions made conclusions recorded supra, this Court and in the light of the see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER , Visakhapatnam District (with To, 1. The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam records) 2. One CC to Sri Rama Krishna A., Advocate (OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Septipn..,Officer, VR Section Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh at SAM sree \ HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE FCA No.16 of2008 DISMISSING THE F.C.A. WITHOUT COSTS