SANTOSHI PATTERN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GURRAMKONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the dismissal order dtd. 18/12/2023 in I.A.No.1371 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 passed by the learned VI Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, ('trial Court'), wherein petition was filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint/petition.

(3.) The respondent herein filed F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 seeking decree of divorce. The F.C.O.P. was filed on 12/12/2022 on the ground of cruelty and extraction of money by the petitioner and her family members, more particularly brother of the petitioner. Initially, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place in Sikh Village, Secunderabad, and thereafter, both the parties have lived in United States of America (USA) for eleven years. Thereafter, the parties have moved to India on permanent basis in June, 2022, by liquidating all the assets in the USA and settled down in Gachibowli, Hyderabad. During the said time period, there were disputes more particularly on the part of the petitioner pressurizing the respondent to invest in the business started by her brother. This conduct on the part of the petitioner amounted to cruelty. The petitioner had obtained no contact order from USA Court on 2/11/2022, wherein the Court directed the respondent not to contact the petitioner and her children through phone, email or any mode of communication. In view of the cruelty meted out by the petitioner, the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.808 of 2022 seeking divorce. In the said F.C.O.P., I.A. under revision is filed to reject the F.C.O.P. under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. for suppression of material facts such as domicile criteria, residential status and fraudulent documentation. The primary ground cited for rejection of F.C.O.P. is that both the parties are residents of USA and have resided in jurisdiction of trial Court for a temporary period of six months only. There are legal proceedings being prosecuted in USA for child custody and divorce and by suppressing the said facts, the present F.C.O.P.is filed. It is contended by the petitioner herein that since both the parties are domicile of USA, the trial Court does not have jurisdiction to try F.C.O.P.