LAWS(APH)-2012-4-111

RACHOKONDA PARVATHI Vs. RACHAKONDA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM

Decided On April 03, 2012
Rachokonda Parvathi Appellant
V/S
Rachakonda Venkata Subrahmanyam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the wife of the respondent.  Their marriage took place on 30 10 1996 at Visakhapatnam. The respondent filed O.P. No.123 of 2000 in the Family Court, Visakhapatnam for divorce.  The O.P. was decreed ex parte on 09 06 2000.  She filed an application under Order – IX Rule 13 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree.  Since there was delay of 153 days in filing it, she filed I.A No.480 of 2006.  In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., she stated that her parents are from the State of Chattisgarh and when she joined the respondent after marriage at Visakhapatnam, she was subjected to harassment through demand of additional dowry.  Reference was made to Crime No.193 of 1998 filed under Section 498 A IPC in the Mahila Police Station, Raipur, Chattisgarh and MJC No.539 of 2001 in the Family Court, Raipur, filed for maintenance.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent appeared before the Family Court, Raipur on 04 10 2005 and at that time he stated about the ex parte decree obtained by him.  The petitioner stated that she was not served with the notice in O.P. filed by the respondent and that since she came to know about the decree, she filed the applications.  The I.A. was opposed by the respondent.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 06 11 2007.  Hence, this revision.

(3.) WHILE the petitioner hails from the State of Chattisgarh, the respondent is from the State of Andhra Pradesh. They got married in the year 1996 at Visakhapatnam. Shortly, thereafter, disputes have arisen between them and the petitioner had to go back to the house of her parents at Raipur. Cases under Sections 498 A IPC and 124 Cr.P.C., were filed in the Courts in that State. Almost at the same point of time, the respondent filed O.P. No.123 of 2000 in the Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree passed in the O.P., filed by the respondent only when he appeared before the Court in the year 2005, and stated about it.