Telangana High Court
Pratapa. Satish Kumar vs Smt. Pratapa Vasantha Lakshmi on 7 June, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL.Nos.296, 299, 300 and 315 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned Counsel for the wife and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the husband.
2. Husband filed a petition vide H.M.O.P.No.20 of 2011 under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
a. The marriage of the wife with the husband was performed on 05.09.2007 at Nannapaneni Venkata Rao Kalyana Mandir, Nazarpet, Tenali, Guntur District, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. The said marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriages on 21.09.2007. b. Thereafter, they have started their matrimonial life in Nizampet, Hyderabad, till 27.06.2010.
c. The wife subjected the husband to cruelty without any reason. She left the matrimonial home without intimating him and his parents on 27.06.2010.
2d. On 05.09.2007, the muhoortam of the marriage was at 07.12 P.M., but she did not come to the place of marriage till 07.00 P.M. Upon enquiry, his parents came to know that she went to beauty parlour, she came late.
e. Infact, she was not interested in the marriage. Therefore, she was not interested to come to the function hall. Her parents forced her to come to the function hall.
f. He felt embarrassed.
g. On 09.09.2007, they went to Kerala for honeymoon where they spent a week happily. Thereafter, they have returned to Hyderabad.
h. Her parents requested him to vacate the house and reside with them at Khairatabad and to join them as "illarikam alludu". He did not accept for the same.
i. She never used to cook food and neglected him. j. She used to cry in public and used to behave oddly in the public places. He requested her to behave properly but for no avail. k. On the other hand, she used to threaten him saying that she will implicate him in false cases and will commit suicide. When the said fact was informed to her parents, they also did not respond. 3 l. She was an employee and used to earn an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month. She used to take all her money and used to spend lavishly. He requested her to reduce the said expenditure but she responded rudely.
m. She conceived and was blessed with a male child on 19.07.2008 namely Master Pratapa Shriyan. He was under the hope that she may change her attitude after giving birth to a child. There was no change in her attitude.
n. She joined with him on 14.08.2008.
o. Annaprasana function was arranged and both of them attended the said function.
p. Even there, she picked up big quarrel with him and his parents. She has also insulted them and returned to Hyderabad on the same day along with small child.
q. On 22.04.2009, when her parents came to his house, she again picked up quarrel with him and his parents and refused entry to his parents into the house. The said fact was informed to her parents.
r. She also threatened to commit suicide.
4
s. Panchayats were held and even elders suggested her to change her attitude. They have also suggested him to take her to Psychiatrist.
t. She did not heed any of the requests. She never came to a Doctor.
u. Finally, she deserted him on 27.06.2010, without any reason, leaving the child with him.
v. She has taken away all her clothes, jewellery etc. while leaving on 27.06.2010. He kept quite.
w. On 19.07.2010, she came to his house and spent some time with the child and went back to her parents' house.
x. On enquiry, she said that her health is not well and she is going back.
y. On 08.08.2010, her father along with some elders came to his house and requested him to give the child. He and his parents accepted the same. Thus, her father took the child with him. z. Despite making serious and best efforts, she did not join his conjugal society.
3. A Panchayat was also held on 16.10.2010 and it became futile exercise.
5
4. Thus according to him, she subjected him to cruelty and also deserted him along with the minor child. Therefore, he has filed the aforesaid H.M.O.P.No.20 of 2011 seeking dissolution of marriage. He has also filed O.P.No.464 of 2011 seeking custody of the minor child i.e. Master Pratapa Shriyan.
5. Wife filed counter denying the said allegations. According to her, her husband and his parents harassed her both physically and mentally.
a. She never subjected him to cruelty and she never deserted him as alleged by him.
b. The engagement of her husband's brother was fixed on 02.07.2010.
c. Therefore, he along with his mother and his child went to their native place i.e. Vutluru, West Godavari District. On the other hand, they are trying to throw the blame on her. d. On 30.06.2010, he called her over phone and said that their relation was broken, she need not come to the said engagement and child will be brought up at Vutluru. e. She could not attend the said engagement one week in advance due to non-availability of leave as she joined the job recently.
6f. He and his parents are taking advantage of the same and are trying to throw the blame on her.
g. The allegations made by him that she neglected him and his parents, she never used to cook food etc. are false and baseless and he is creating the same for the purpose of filing the present O.P and to get rid of her.
h. She never took all her belongings as alleged by him. i. She has no intention of leaving him.
j. She did not bring her clothes, jewellery and even the documents like passport, degree certificate, cheque book etc. The same are in her matrimonial house.
k. Her father met the elders at Eluru on 14.11.2010 and tried to resolve the issue.
l. She also made it very clear that she has no intention of leaving the matrimonial house. Even then, there was no response.
m. Unconnected people used to dominate her in the house including Smt. Prabha, who used to stay in the house continuously during vacations and weekends. 7 n. The said Smt. Prabha is her husband's father's colleague and she was determined to harass her and infact she was successful in such attempts.
o. Her husband used to take Smt. Prabha's salary and also used to insist her to draw the cash from A.T.M. He has taken an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- at the time of purchasing the house and thereafter her father deposited the said amount in her account and he demanded her to draw the said amount. Accordingly, she handed over the said amount to him. p. He was an alcoholic and used to harass and humiliate her apart from physical assaults.
q. Despite the said problems, she expressed her willingness to join the conjugal society of her husband, keeping her welfare and welfare of her child.
6. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the O.P. filed by her husband seeking dissolution of marriage. She also filed counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights.
7. To prove the said ground of cruelty, husband examined himself as PW1, his brother as PW2, mediator as PW3 and his mother as PW4. He had filed Exs.P1 and P2 documents. To disprove the said 8 ground of cruelty, wife examined herself as RW1, her father as RW2 and mediator as RW3. She has filed Exs.R1 to R7 documents.
8. To prove his claim in O.P.No.20 of 2011 as well as in O.P.No.454 of 2011, he examined himself as PW1, his brother as PW2, mediator as PW3 and his mother as PW4. He filed Exs.P1 and P2 documents.
9. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, vide order and decree dated 13.08.2011, learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, granted judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act, for a period of one year instead of granting decree of divorce as sought by the husband. Counter claim made by the wife was dismissed. Vide order dated 13.08.2012, learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, dismissed O.P.No.454 of 2011 filed by the husband seeking custody of the minor child.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2012 in O.P.No.20 of 2011, in not granting decree of divorce, husband preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.300 of 2012. Likewise, challenging the order dated 13.08.2012 in O.P.No.454 of 2011, in not granting custody of the child, he has preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.299 of 2012. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2012 in O.P.No.20 of 9 2011, in granting judicial separation for a period of one year, wife preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.296 of 2012. Challenging the said order dismissing her counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights, she preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.315 of 2012.
11. The afore-stated facts would reveal that the marriage of the husband with the wife was performed on 05.09.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. The said marriage was consumated. They were blessed with a male child namely Master Pratapa Shriyan on 19.07.2008 and at present he is 16 years. He is with the wife. He is prosecuting his studies.
12. As discussed above, though the husband leveled certain allegations against the wife, they are not at all serious. They are petty issues. It is not the case of the husband that the wife committed serious acts of cruelty. Leaving the husband without informing him and his parents, asking to vacate the house and join her house as "illarikam alludu", not cooking food etc. are only petty issues. They cannot be considered as cruel acts.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh1 relying on its earlier judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli 2 1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 2 (2006) 4 SCC 558 10 observed certain incidents of cruelty in paragraph No.101 which are as under:-
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.11
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
14. The same are illustrative, but not exhaustive.
15. In paragraph (f) of his petition in O.P.No.20 of 2011, he has made serious allegations that she behaved rudely and threatened him that she will commit suicide, but he has not proved the same by producing some evidence. Even with regard to the alleged incident on Annaprasana day, he has not elicited the same during cross- examination of his wife(RW1). Even with regard to the incident dated 22.04.2009, he has not proved the same by producing any evidence.
16. It is also apt to note that husband has made a serious allegation that his wife is suffering from psychiatric problem and elders advised him to take her to a psychiatrist, but she did not cooperate with him. He failed to prove the same by producing atleast some evidence except examining the mother and brother with regard to the same. He has not examined any independent witness.
17. It is also relevant to note that wife also made serious allegations against her husband saying that he was addicted to alcohol, used to 12 come home in drunken condition and used to harass her both physically and mentally, but she failed to prove the same. She never lodged any complaint with the Police and never brought the same to notice of the elders. Thus, she failed to prove the same. She failed to elicit anything from her husband(PW1).
18. Perusal of the record would reveal that Panchayats were held three times, even then, both the husband and wife did not come to a conclusion.
19. PW2, PW1's brother, in his cross-examination categorically admitted that even after his marriage, he, his wife and PW1(brother) lived together. His sister-in-law(RW1) left their company on 27.06.2010. Thereafter, she did not come to his brother's company. He did not visit her till now. She used to reside at Khairatabad with her parents. His brother did not go to her parent's house till now. His parents used to come to their house at Kukatpally. His parents also did not go to her parent's house till today. He has some difference of opinion with her. There is no specific reason for the said difference. She used to talk to him very rarely. She did not come to his house after she left the company of his brother. He never invited her after his marriage. He advised his brother to get back her. He again added that he never advised with regard to the same. He did not go to her 13 parent's house to see the child. At present, he, his wife, his brother and his parents are living together in their house situated at Nizampet. His parents live in their native place and they come to Hyderabad now and then. He along his wife and brother live together.
20. It is also relevant to note that husband(PW1), during his cross- examination categorically admitted that his parents visited his house very frequently and he used to go to his in-law's house very rarely, perhaps seven to eight times. He had a difference of opinion with his father-in-law. He did not have cordial relations with his in-laws. His father and father-in-law used to discuss about the matters in general, but he does not know anything about the said topics. Her parents and his father used to discuss about her acts against him.
21. He filed divorce petition on 27.12.2010. He did not issue any notice to her calling her to join him. He did not go to his in-law's house to get her and their child back.
22. According to him, his father went to her parent's house to get back her to his company. He has not mentioned the name of the person who told him that she is going to the U.S.A. He has not given any notice to his wife on the said aspect. He has not filed any memo before the learned Family Court saying that his wife was trying to go to the U.S.A. She is a B-Tech graduate. He did not know the reason 14 why she did not join any job for about two years. The pregnancy was confirmed in the year 2007 i.e. three months after the marriage. Though a Panchayat was held, he has not mentioned the said fact in his petition. He did not want to examine his father namely Sri Pratapa Ravindranath Tagore. She did not attend the marriage of his brother. He did not invite his father-in-law including his wife and by that time, there was separation between him and his wife.
23. From 27.06.2010, till today, he did not send any money to his child for his needs. He is getting a salary of Rs.45,000/- per month. His child is aged about three years. His wife asked him to join as "illarikam alludu" but he refused. He did not mention the said facts in the aforesaid O.P. He was working in Satyam Computers at that particular point of time. He has not filed any document to show that his wife has taken money from him. Totally forty Panchayats were held but the said fact was not mentioned in the aforesaid O.P.
24. His child was born on 19.07.2008 in hospital. He did not remember as to who paid money in the hospital. There was quarrel between him and his wife with regard to performing the pooja on Annaprasana day.
25. On 04.04.2009, he and his wife lived together, but there was no sexual relation between them. He did not plead the said fact in the 15 present petition saying that from 04.04.2009 till the date of separation, there was no sexual relationship between them. There was a Panchayat regarding the quarrelsome nature of his wife during Annaprasana. He has not pleaded the same in his petition.
26. When his wife did not allow his parents into the house, he informed the same to her parents on the same day. She also threatened to commit suicide. He has conducted Panchayat about his wife's mental condition and health. She refused to accept treatment. He did not mention the same in the aforesaid O.P. including the rejoinder.
27. On 27.06.2010, his child was with his mother at his brother's house. His parents and in-laws house is located at Khairatabad. He did not go to his in-law's house on 27.06.2010. At the request of his in-law's, his child was given to them on 08.08.2010. His father went to the house of his in-law's along with other elders. He does not remember the date. The said fact was not mentioned in the O.P. He has not mentioned in his pleadings that his wife took away the said items in his presence. He is not interested to take his wife back into his company. He is never addicted to alcohol and never tasted liquor.
28. PW3(mediator), during cross-examination admitted that he knows PW1's father. He was present in every occasion that took 16 place in the house of PW1. He was present even on the day of Engagement, Cradle ceremony and Annaprasana ceremony. He did not know the date of separation of parties herein. As per the version of RW1, the separation took place on 27.06.2010. He, PW1's father and three other people went to negotiations with RW1 and her father. RW1 informed him that PW1 used to come to house late in the nights. There was no Panchayat on the said aspect immediately. He has participated in four Panchayats. The said facts were not mentioned in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination.
29. PW4 is the mother of PW1. She also deposed in the same lines.
30. On consideration of the entire evidence, learned Family Court instead of granting dissolution of marriage, as sought by the husband, granted judicial separation for a period of one year alternatively. Learned Family Court gave a specific finding that the husband failed to prove the cruel acts. Learned Family Court also considered that the parties have a child. The disputes between them are not very much serious like adultery etc.
31. According to the learned Family Court, there is a chance of reunion of the parties, more particularly, for the welfare of the child. Therefore, with the said observations/findings, learned Family Court instead of granting dissolution of marriage granted judicial separation. 17
32. As discussed supra, though the parties made several allegations against each other, they have pleaded the same and not proved.
33. Feeling aggrieved by the said judicial separation for a period of one year, wife has preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.296 of 2012. Vide order dated 20.11.2012, this Court granted interim suspension. As discussed supra, learned Family Court granted judicial separation for a period of one year and the said period was over and infact the said order was stayed by this Court.
34. It is relevant to note that both learned counsel for the husband and wife, on instructions submit that during the pendency of the present appeals, several attempts were made for the re-union of the parties. The said efforts went in vain. Child is with the wife. Husband did not pay any amount to the child or to the wife. He has not availed visitation rights granted by learned Family Court vide order dated 13.08.2012 in O.P.No.454 of 2011.
35. As on the date of filing of the said O.P., husband was 29 years and he is now 42 years. Wife was 27 years and she is now 40 years. Child is now 16 ½ years. As rightly held by the learned Family Court, the disputes between the parties are petty issues and they are not serious issues like adultery, bigamy and physical assault. Neither the wife nor the husband lodged any criminal complaints against each 18 other. She has not even filed any application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It appears the disputes between the parties are due to ego. They can be sorted out keeping the welfare of the minor child.
36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, considering the fact that the child is now 16 ½ years and he is going to become major shortly and it is for him to take a decision and that husband did not avail visitation rights, he has not spent any money towards his welfare, F.C.A.NO.299 of 2012 filed by the husband is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
37. As discussed supra, learned Family Court granted judicial separation for a period of one year and the said period was over. Infact, the said order was stayed by this Court. In the light of the same, appeal filed by wife challenging the said order granting judicial separation vide F.C.A.No.296 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
38. As discussed supra, the husband is not entitled for divorce. Therefore, the appeal filed by him vide F.C.A.No.300 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
39. Wife filed an appeal vide F.C.A.No.315 of 2012, challenging the order dated 13.08.2012 in O.P.No.20 of 2011, in dismissing the 19 counter claim filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights. As discussed supra, during the course of hearing, both learned counsel for the husband and the wife, on instructions, submitted that during the pendency of the present appeals, efforts were made for re-union of the parties and the same went in vain. In the light of the same, this appeal is also dismissed granting liberty to the wife to file fresh O.P. seeking restitution of conjugal rights, if so advised.
40. In the result:-
All these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J 07.06.2024 Myk/spk