Copyright deccanchronicle
Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking summary rejection of the divorce petition filed against her by her spouse. She took recourse to the procedure under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the court to reject the plaint at the threshold. Dismissing the petition of the woman, who unsuccessfully sought the same relief in the Family Court, the High Court upheld the view of the Family Court. The couple, both Overseas Citizens of India (OCI), lived in the United States for over a decade. They have liquidated their assets and returned to Hyderabad in 2022 and settled in Gachibowli. The husband filed a petition seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and financial demands allegedly made by his wife and her family. The wife, in turn, sought rejection of the case, contending that both parties were domiciled in the US, and that the Indian court lacked jurisdiction since divorce and child custody proceedings were pending before a court in Utah in the US. Opposing the plea, the husband contended that the couple permanently relocated to India, purchased residential property in Gachibowli, enrolled their children in a Hyderabad school, and were residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rangareddy court. He argued that being OCI cardholders did not bar them from invoking jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, as they had last resided together in India. Justice Renuka Yara observed that the existence of marital discord itself gave rise to a valid cause of action, and that questions regarding domicile, citizenship, and territorial jurisdiction involved disputed facts requiring evidence and could not be decided at the preliminary stage. The judge held that such issues must be determined during trial, not while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, Justice Renuka upheld its order, concluding that the petition for rejection of the divorce case was devoid of merit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, confirming that marital disputes between OCI cardholders residing in India fall within the jurisdiction of Indian family courts.HC clears 6 of familiy from marriage fraud complaint Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against six family members accused of cheating in connection with a broken marriage promise, holding that there were no specific allegations or evidence linking them to the alleged offence. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Veparaala Uday Kumar and others seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial. The complaint was lodged by a woman who claimed she had been in a relationship with the principal accused for six years. She alleged that he later refused to marry her in the presence of his parents and the petitioners and demanded dowry. Justice Sridevi, however, noted that the chargesheet primarily attributed the alleged acts to the man who backed out of the marriage, and not to his family members. There were no distinct allegations, overt acts or material to suggest that the petitioners acted with fraudulent or dishonest intent. Referring to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the judge observed that when the allegations in an FIR fail to disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the judicial process. 40-plus can also play league cricket: HC Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reprimanded the actions of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) in not permitting a city-based cricket club to register players aged above 40 years for participation in the B-Division two-day league matches. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sahebzada Azmath Ali Khan, vice-president and incharge president of Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club. The petitioner alleged that the apex council of the HCA had acted in an arbitrary and unlawful manner by denying registration to eligible players who previously represented the club and by replacing them without giving valid reasons. It was argued that the inaction was capricious, in violation of the club’s rights under the HCA bylaws, and infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought directions to register the club’s players for participation in the ongoing league. The petitioner pointed out that under similar circumstances, the court had allowed registration of players aged 40 years and above. In view of the previous orders passed by the Telangana High Court, the judge extended the interim order and ordered notices to the HCA and other respondent authorities. Drug pedlar’s habeas corpus writ petition junked A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of ...
