Telangana High Court
Kamreddy Jaipal Reddy vs Smt.Kamreddy Annapoorna on 15 February, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.203 of 2012
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Heard Smt. P. Sujatha, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 04.05.2012 in F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2010, passed by the learned Family Court - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, appellant/husband preferred the present appeal.
3. Appellant/husband had filed aforesaid F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2010, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 31.07.2006, as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. In fact, it is second marriage to the appellant and after obtaining a decree of divorce with his first wife, he married respondent herein. Respondent is a widow. They blessed with a son on 13.06.2007.
2
4. The appellant/husband went to the U.S.A on 10.07.2007 and returned to India on 14.10.2011. Within 15 days, he has filed the aforesaid O.P seeking dissolution of marriage. They lived happily from 13.07.2006 to April 2007.
5. According to the appellant/husband, respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty. She was frequently visiting her parents without informing the appellant. She started behaving with the parents of the appellant in indifferent and indignant manner demonstrating any amount of emotions and anger. She never attended household affairs. She started commanding the appellant and his parents. She had gone to the extent of asking the appellant to do menial works such as washing her clothes including under garments etc., The said type of life on the part of the respondent not only lowered the prestige of the appellant in the society, but also among the family members. She never took care of the newly born baby. She never properly and timely gave breast feeding to the newly born baby. Though she is house wife, she neglected the appellant, his son and parents, thus according to him, respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty.
3
6. Respondent/wife filed counter denying the said allegations. According to her, she never subjected the appellant to cruelty as alleged by him.
7. To prove the said ground of cruelty, the appellant/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and his father as P.W.2. He filed Ex.P1 - Residential Certificate and Ex.P2 - Affidavit of marriage. To disprove the said cruelty, respondent/wife examined herself as R.W.1 and her father as R.W.2. On consideration of entire evidence, the learned Family Court gave a specific finding that appellant failed to prove the said ground of cruelty.
8. It is relevant to note that respondent/wife had lodged a complaint against appellant/husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and she has also filed an application vide D.V.C.No.24 of 2011 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Mere filing of complaint under Section 498-A of IPC and filing of application vide D.V.C.No.24 of 2011 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, does not amounts to cruelty. If the husband subjects wife to cruelty, she has every right to lodge complaint. She can also file an 4 application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, seeking certain relief against the husband.
9. In fact, appellant went to U.S.A on 10.07.2007 and returned to India on 14.10.2011. Within 15 days of return to India, he has filed the aforesaid O.P seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty without even assigning the alleged cruel acts. The allegations made by him are vague.
10. The appellant who filed the aforesaid O.P seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty has to prove the same by producing cogent evidence. On flimsy grounds he cannot seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. As discussed supra, the appellant herein failed to prove the aforesaid ground by producing cogent evidence. On consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Family Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2010 filed by the appellant herein. It is a reasoned Order and well founded. It does not require any interference of this Court in the present appeal. The appellant herein failed to make any ground to interfere with the said reasoned Order.
5
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 15.02.2024 tri