logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 853 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 30 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Parties : Kaligote Swamy Versus Kaligote Shranya @ Sunke Shranya
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel representing Golem Sai Chaithanya, learned counsel. For the Respondent: Vasudeva Rao, learned counsel representing Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel.
Date of Judgment : 21-08-2026
Head Note :-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) -
Judgment :-

Renuka Yara, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2025 in I.A.No.304 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Armoor (‘Trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) to set aside the ex parte order dated 31.12.2024 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024, has been dismissed.

2. The background facts are that the respondent herein-wife filed H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the appellant-husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2021 at Purasthugalli, Bheemgal, Nizamabad, as per Hindu customs and traditions. According to the respondent, dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and household articles worth of Rs.5,00,000/- were given to the appellant and the parents of the respondent incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. After marriage, the appellant started to harass the respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- within 15 days of marriage, as such she was forced to leave the appellant’s house and go to her parents house on 30.05.2021. Thereafter, the appellant went to Dubai and the respondent came to know that he came back on 06.11.2023 and on 13.11.2023 the respondent along with her father went to the appellant’s house, but they were not allowed and demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. In the circumstances, the respondent lodged complaint on 17.11.2023 before the Police, Bheemgal, under Section 498 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act’), and the said case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Armoor. The respondent tried to bring about reconciliation, but was of no avail. In the circumstances, the respondent filed petition seeking divorce decree in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024. In spite of service of summons, the appellant failed to appear before the Court and therefore, ex parte divorce decree was passed vide order dated 31.12.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed I.A.No.304 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.12.2024 and I.A.No.303 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 to condone delay of 204 days in filing the said petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The Trial Court considered the case of the appellant and dismissed the petition filed seeking set aside of the ex parte decree as well as the petition to condone delay. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.11.2025 in I.A.No.304 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024, wherein the Court declined to set aside the ex parte decree, the present C.M.A. is filed.

3. In the grounds of the C.M.A, it is alleged that no notice was ever served on the appellant at his native address in India or his address at Dubai. Further, the notice was not served on the company’s number used by the appellant. There is fraudulent service of notice on some other number and thereby, ex parte decree dated 31.12.2024 was secured. The copies of passport filed by the appellant show that he was in Dubai and never received any notice in the H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024. In the circumstances stated, it is pleaded that there is an error committed in dismissing I.A.No.304 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 filed to set aside the ex parte decree vide order dated 24.11.2025 by way of the impugned order.

4. The respondent filed counter reiterating the case presented by her in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 including criminal case registered against the appellant and his mother. The evidence led before the Trial Court was in favour of the respondent and as such the H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 was decreed in her favour. It is pleaded that the Court considered the facts and arguments and passed perfectly legal order and there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was no service of notice on the appellant in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 as he was residing in Dubai in relation to his employment. Further, it is submitted that the respondent played fraud on the Court by serving notice on some other person, but not on the appellant and reported to the Court that notice was served and thereby, the ex parte decree has been secured. It is submitted that any order secured by playing fraud on the Court is liable to be set aside and the same principle is applicable to the present case.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent denied allegations of fraud on the part of the respondent with respect to serving of notice on the appellant. More particularly, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the impugned order at paragraph Nos.10 and 13, wherein observation was made about registration of H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on 15.03.2024 and issuance of notice on the appellant on 20.12.2024. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the respondent got married to another person after grant of ex parte decree.

7. As per the docket orders, notice was served on the appellant on 20.12.2024 virtually. However, the appellant had filed copies of passport to show that he was in Dubai when notice was purported to be served on him. It is also observed that according to the respondent, the notice was served on the appellant through whatsapp chat and cell phone. The documents were sent to the appellant and he received the same. It is observed that there are no reasons given as to how he had knowledge about the divorce and his lack of knowledge about the respondent obtaining divorce through Court. It is also held that details of family members were not disclosed to ascertain as to who is expected to have knowledge about the fact that the respondent approached the Court for divorce. In view of filing of criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, vide FIR.No.194 of 2023, the mother and sister of the appellant were aware of the marital disputes and they cannot be ignorant of the divorce proceedings. Therefore, the appellant‘s contention of not having knowledge about the divorce proceedings was disregarded and the petitions were dismissed.

8. In this regard, when the counter filed by the respondent in the I.A.No.304 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 is perused, it is seen that in H.M.O.P. as per the docket sheet dated 07.06.2024, the respondent herein (petitioner therein) was present and fresh notice was issued to the appellant herein (respondent therein) on payment of process, on proper address. Further, as per docket sheet dated 20.12.2024 it was recorded that the respondent herein (petitioner therein) was present and notice was served on the appellant herein (respondent therein), virtually online vide respondent’s father’s (i.e., father of the petitioner therein) Cell No.8374994542 to the Whatsapp Number of the appellant herein (respondent therein) +971503866061 (UAE Dubai) on 11.12.2024 at 6:25 PM. The served copies are submitted before the Trial Court. The appellant herein (respondent therein) was called absent as there was no representation. Hence, appellant has been set ex parte and matter was posted for the evidence of the respondent herein (petitioner therein). Subsequently, the H.M.O.P. was decreed in favour of the respondent herein.

9. This factual recording with respect to the service of the notice on the appellant herein shows that the notice was served online from the Whatsapp Cell No.8374994542 which belongs to the father of the respondent herein to the Cell No.+971503866061 (UAE Dubai) of the appellant herein on 11.12.2024 at 6:25 p.m. Such being the case of the appellant, he ought to have given details whether or not Cell No.8374994542 belongs to the father of the respondent herein and whether or not Cell No.+971503866061 (UAE Dubai) belongs to the appellant herein or not. The appellant cannot make a blanket submission about the respondent fraudulently served notice on some other person. There has to be a specific denial about Cell No.8374994542 as to whether or not it belongs to the father of the respondent herein and whether Cell No.+971503866061 (UAE Dubai) belongs to the appellant or not. In the absence of such specific pleadings no weightage can be given to the case of the appellant about the respondent serving notice on some other person with fraudulent intention.

10. Lastly, the very fact of the family members of the appellant i.e., himself and his mother being arrayed as accused in the criminal case lodged by the respondent vide FIR No.194 of 2023 under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, shows that there can be no question of them not having knowledge about the divorce proceedings filed by the respondent, as such there are no merits in the present C.M.A and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order dated 24.11.2025 in I.A.No.304 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Armoor. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal