Allegations Without Proof Insufficient For Divorce: Telangana HC
The wife was challenging the order of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, which rejected her petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Hyderabad:A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court declared that mere omnibus allegations without evidence was insufficient for grant of divorce. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy dismissed a Family Court appeal filed by a woman seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife was challenging the order of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, which rejected her petition for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. She alleged that her husband subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, maintained an illicit relationship with an employee of their drinking water plant, and had driven her out of the matrimonial home in 2011. The panel noted that the wife failed to file any documentary proof of the alleged damage to the water plant, sale of machinery, or the alleged illicit relationship. No independent witnesses were examined, including the couple’s two adult sons, to support her claims. During interaction with the parties in open court, the panel observed that the couple continued to reside under the same roof in Khammam, travel together, jointly operate their drinking water plant business, and was arranging their younger son’s marriage. “These facts would reveal that there is no desertion between them as alleged,” the panel observed. While the husband expressed willingness to continue the marriage, the wife reiterated her desire for divorce. Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s conclusion, the panel dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was “reasoned and well-founded.”
No relief for couple in fake paper case
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court refused to exercise the court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings against a couple accused of orchestrating a fraudulent property transfer by fabricating a legal heir certificate. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Akula Sudharani and Akula Srinivasa Rao, arraigned as accused before the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal. The petitioners sought obliteration of proceedings on the ground that the dispute was a civil inheritance issue impermissibly clothed with criminal colour. Rejecting this contention, the judge noted that the FIR contained prima facie allegations of deception, dishonest inducement, and deliberate misrepresentation, including the allegation that the petitioners projected Sudharani as the sole legal heir to her parents in order to procure a family member certificate, which was later used to execute a gift settlement deed in favour of their daughter. Citing the Supreme Court’s settled principles, the judge reiterated that while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under the NBSS, the High Court cannot embark upon a “mini-trial” or evaluate competing evidence, and must only determine whether the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of an offence. Decrying the attempt to “mask criminal intent behind the veneer of a civil dispute,” Justice Bheemapaka held that the petitioners failed to meet the stringent threshold for quashing and that the issues raised require full-fledged adjudication at trial.
HC furious, couple detained at airport despite stay
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court took strong exception to the detention of two Indian-born Singaporean citizens at the Chennai airport despite a High Court stay on proceedings in a cruelty case. The judge is hearing a criminal petition filed seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of allegations of cruelty by husband and relatives. The petitioners contended that despite a subsisting stay granted earlier by the High Court, they were stopped and detained at the Chennai airport on the ground that a look-out circular had been issued against them. They contended that the trial court later directed their appearance, and that this order was passed during the operation of the stay. The judge questioned how the trial court could restrain the petitioners from travelling or direct their appearance when the proceedings had been stayed. The judge sought an affidavit from the petitioners explaining the circumstances of their detention at Chennai airport. The judge directed the state to clarify who authorised the applications before the magistrate seeking arrest and how orders affecting foreign citizens were obtained when the stay was in force. Observing that issuing directions contrary to a subsisting High Court stay “constitutes judicial overreach” and undermines the majesty of the Court, the judge posted the matter to Monday for further hearing.
No charges in 12 yrs: Bizmen get pre-arrest bail
Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to three businessmen from Kurnool who were accused of participating in a decade-old deposit scheme scam linked to Akshaya Gold Farms & Villas India Ltd. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Shaik Latheef Basha and others. The petitioners sought protection from arrest in a case registered in 2013 alleging cheating and violations under the AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. According to the prosecution, the de-facto complainant invested money in deposit schemes that promised high returns, but the company failed to honour the agreement or refund the amount. Counsel for the petitioners contended that they were innocent, were falsely implicated, and that the investigation was pending for over 12 years with no chargesheet filed. It was pointed out that the prime accused was arrested and released on bail and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was unnecessary.