Ajmera Ramulu v. B. Chandrakala

1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court. CM APPL. 46940/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. C.R.P 102/2021 & CM APPL. 46939/2021 (for stay)

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21st September, 2021 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “Trial Court”) in HMA No.301/2018 titled Sh. Ajmera Ramalu v. Smt. B. Chandrakala. By the impugned order, the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected by the Trial Court. The Respondent-Wife (hereinafter “Wife”) preferred a petition under Section 18(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter “HMA”), seeking a decree of divorce against the Petitioner-Husband (hereinafter “Husband”). 2021:DHC:4350

4. The case of the Wife is that her marriage was solemnised on 2nd February, 1998 at Ramagundam, District Paddapalli, Telangana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, as both the Husband and Wife are Hindus. It was on this premise that the provisions of the HMA were invoked before the Trial Court, and a decree of divorce was sought by the Wife.

5. Before the Trial Court, the Husband filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, taking the preliminary ground that both the parties belong to the Lambadis (Banjara) community of Telangana/Andhra Pradesh, which has been notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the said territory. Accordingly, the case of the Husband is that the provisions of HMA would not be applicable to the present case. The application filed by the Husband has been rejected by the Trial Court.

6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court observed that the adjudication of the question as to whether the marriage between the Husband and the Wife was solemnized as per Hindu rites or not, as also whether the parties were Hindus or not, would require evidence to be led in this respect. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the petition could not be rejected at this stage. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 21st September, 2021 reads as under:

7. Mr. Manoj Singh, ld. Counsel for the Husband, submits that though there are various judgments of the High Courts, including the recent judgment of this Court in Satprakash Meena vs. Alka Meena [C.R.P.1/2021 decided on 7th July, 2021], the present case is distinguishable on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the marriage between the parties was conducted and solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. Thus, the judgment in Satprakash Meena (supra) would not be applicable.

8. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Wife submits that the petition filed before the Trial Court is clear to the effect that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. He further submits that the question as to whether the same is factually correct or not would require evidence to be adduced in respect thereof.

9. This Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties. Both the Husband and Wife are well-settled professionals. The Wife is an IAS officer and the Husband is an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

10. The Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the Husband under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after considering various judgments in respect of the principle of law that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint needs to be seen and the defence need not be perused. Trial Court has further observed that evidence would be required to be led for the purpose of deciding as to whether the Husband and Wife were married as per Hindu rites and customs, or not.

11. In the petition preferred by the Wife seeking a decree of divorce against the Husband, the relevant portion reads as under: “1.That the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 02.02.1998 at Ramagundam, Dist Peddapalli, Telangana. An affidavit to this effect is enclosed with the present petition.

2. That the status, age, domicile and place of residence of the parties to the present petition, before marriage, and at the time of filing of the present petition was/is as follows: PETITIONER/WIFE STATUS AGE Place of Residence Before Marriage Bachelor Hindu 18 years Approx. Ramagundam, District Peddapalli, Telangana At the time of filing the present petition Married Hindu 37 years Approx. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi RESPONDENT/HUSBAND STATUS AGE Place of Residence Before Marriage Bachelor Hindu 29 years Approx. Village Garjanpally, Post Yellareddypet, District Sirisilla Rajanna Telangana At the time of filing the present Petition Married Hindu 48 years Approx. Village Garjanpally, Post Yellareddypet, District Sirisilla Rajanna Telangana

3. That the parties to the Petition co-habited as husband and wife at the Matrimonial home at Karim Nagar, District Karim Nagar, Telangana and the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was duly consummated out of which one child namely Ms. Kirti Chandra was born out of the said wedlock.