Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P. Sumana And Another vs P.V. Niranjan Kumar Reddy on 7 January, 2022
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.M.A. No. 220 of 2008
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) The present Appeal came to be filed assailing the Order dated 22.01.2008 passed in H.M.O.P. No. 111 of 2003 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, wherein, the application filed by the Respondent/Husband herein seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was allowed.
2) The facts, in the O.P., are as under:
(i) The marriage between the Respondent/Husband and Appellant No.1/Wife herein was solemnized on 06.08.1989 at Block No. 1, Srinivasa Kalyanamandapam, Tirupati Town, as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the Appellant No.1/Wife joined the Respondent/Husband at his residence and lived happily till December 1990 at Tirupati.
As the Respondent/Husband was working in U.S.A., he left to U.S.A. and continued with his job there. The Appellant No.1/Wife joined the Respondent/Husband at U.S.A. in the month of August 1991 and they lived happily till 1993. It is alleged that, since 1994, the Appellant No.1/Wife used to insist the Respondent/Husband to send money to her parents for their luxuries. Accordingly, the Respondent/Husband sent an amount of $15,000.00 2 dollars, but, the Appellant No.1/wife being not satisfied with money sent forced him to send more and more amounts to her parents, who were living in Bangalore. At one particular stage, when the Respondent/Husband refused to send money, relationship strained between them. It is further alleged that the Appellant No.1/Wife never behaved as a dutiful wife.
(ii) It is said that, in the year 2000, the Appellant No.1/Wife without the knowledge and permission of the Respondent/Husband gave a cheque for $10,000/- dollars from their joint account to her father, by name, Subba Reddy, which was dishonoured, on presentation, for insufficient funds. After knowing the fact of dishonour of cheque, through her father, the Appellant No.1/Wife abused Respondent/Husband in filthy language.
(iii) It is averred that, while the Respondent/Husband was in U.S.A., he purchased a house from his own earnings, in the month of January 2000. Since then, the Appellant No.1/Wife used to comment for registering in his name. It is said that, in the year 2002 the Appellant No.1/Wife became pregnant and, as such, her mother, by name, C. Janani, came to U.S.A. in the second week of February 2003 and lived along with them. On the instigation of her mother, the Appellant No.1/Wife started demanding to transfer properties in her name and also demanded to purchase 3 plots only at Bangalore and not at any other places. When the Respondent/Husband refused for the same, he was insulted by her. It is said that, Appellant No.1/Wife often used to remove mangala sutram and wears as and when she likes.
(iv) On 01.03.2003 the Appellant No.1/Wife gave birth to one male child [Appellant No.2] in U.S.A. One week thereafter, at about 4.00 'O clock in the morning, when the child was crying, the Respondent/Husband took the child in his hands to console him, but without any reason, the Appellant No.1/Wife raised hue and cry and when the Respondent/Husband questioned the attitude of her, she called her mother and father, who were residing along with them. It is said that, on the next day, the father of the Appellant No.1/Wife shifted the child to another room and the Respondent/Husband was not allowed to see and touch the child. Then the Appellant No.1/Wife telephoned to U.S.A. Police, who came to their house, but she informed them that only to threaten her husband, she called the police.
(v) It is further averred that, on 01.04.2003, the Appellant No.1/Wife and her father threatened the
Respondent/Husband not to send any money to his parents and also not to visit his parent's native place or relatives house, at any time, and further demanded him to transfer 4 all his properties in her name. After withdrawing all the bank balance from the joint account, the Appellant No.1/Wife left U.S.A. along with her mother and Appellant No.2, against the wishes of Respondent/Husband and since then living in Bangalore.
(vi) In the second week of June 2003, the sister and brother-in-law of the Respondent/Husband went to Bangalore to see both the Appellants and presented a gold chain to Appellant No.2, but the gold chain was returned back. At that point of time, the father of the Appellant No.1/Wife threatened them stating that they want 50% share in the properties standing in the name of the Respondent/Husband.
(vii) While the Respondent/Husband was in U.S.A., the parents of the Appellant No.1/Wife informed him that they intend to conduct tonsure ceremony of the Appellant No. 2 at Tirumala, and asked him to come down to Bangalore to attend the function. Due to paucity of time, the Respondent/Husband informed them that he will directly come to Tirupathi and asked them to call him back when they would reach Tirupati enabling him to accompany them to Tirumala. Though, Appellant No.1/Wife and her parents agreed to inform him in advance, but, without informing him and in his absence, tonsure ceremony function was performed.
5
(viii) On 23.11.2003, the Respondent/Husband and one Rajagopal Naidu went to Bangalore for mediation, but, the Appellant No.1/Wife did not budge. It is alleged that, after filing of O.P., the court held reconciliation between them on 03.03.2004. Pursuant to which, the Appellant No.1/Wife joined the Respondent/Husband along with Appellant No.2 in U.S.A. on 24.05.2004. After the reunion, her behaviour became more aggressive, started shouting and beating him apart from calling police, without any fault. It is said that, on 16.07.2004, the Appellant No.1/Wife asked the Respondent/Husband to dress Appellant No. 2 and when he suggested her to take care of the dressing of Appellant No.2, she grew wild and called the police.
(ix) It is said that, on 04.10.2004, the Appellant No.1/Wife left U.S.A. deserting the Respondent/Husband and, since, then staying in Bangalore with her parents. On 11.09.2005, the Appellant No.1/Wife gave a legal notice on behalf of Appellant No. 2 to Respondent/Husband demanding partition of joint family properties, which indicates the mind of her to part ways with him permanently. Having regard to the above and with other allegations, the Respondent/Husband filed the O.P. seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
6
3) (i) The Appellant No.1/Wife filed counter denying the averments made in the O.P. Though she admits existence of some disputes, but, however, after reconciliation, she joined the Respondent/Husband at U.S.A. She also filed additional counter.
(ii) In the counters filed, it is said that, both the Appellant No.1/Wife and Respondent/Husband started a company, by name, "HY RANKS INC" and dividends were received in the year 1997. After the success of "HY RANKS INC", they also started another company called "SABER SYSTEMS INC". The Appellant No.1/Wife who was working in "HY RANKS INC" was also heading the company "SABER" and all the income derived from the company was given to Respondent/Husband Company "HY RANKS INC", as it was a placement company. It is alleged that, from the financial contributions made by her, Respondent/Husband purchased a house in U.S.A.
(iii) The Appellant No.1/Wife admits that, in the year 2000, she gave a cheque of $10,000 dollars to her father from their joint account, when he met with an accident, but, however the cheque was dishonoured as the Respondent/Husband gave instructions to bank not to honour the said cheque. It is said that, the Respondent/Husband being the only son-in-law to her parents, he should have come to their aid in every way that 7 he could, instead he chose to be heartless towards their situation, which caused lot of grief to her and her parents.
(iv) It is said that, the Respondent/Husband under duress coerced her to sign a "Quit Claim Deed" making her give up all her claims over their home, car etc., as he would not sign the baby's passport and would file a petition for divorce against her in U.S.A. It is alleged that, on 02.03.2003, the Respondent/Husband without any explanation abandoned the Appellants and took up residence elsewhere. Though, she tried to call him several times, but as there was no response, she returned to India on 25.03.2003 along with Appellant No. 2.
4) During the course of trial, the Respondent/Husband examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B16, while the Appellant No.1/wife examined RW1 to RW3, but, no documents were marked on her behalf.
5) After considering the evidence available on record, the Trial Court allowed the petition granting divorce to the Respondent/Husband. Challenging the same, the present Appeal came to be filed.
6) Sri. K. Challaiah, Advocate, representing Smt. S. Vani, learned Counsel for the Appellants, would contend that, the reason given by the learned District Judge for granting divorce cannot stand the test of scrutiny. According to him, on flimsy grounds and basing on the incident, which 8 happen regularly in day-to-day life, the court below granted divorce treating them as cruel in nature. It is further alleged that when the Appellant No.1 herein was not well, the question of she entertaining the visitors after the birth of the child, more so, when the child was unwell, cannot be a ground to grant divorce. Hence, the version of RW1 [Appellant No.1/Wife] in calling the police to her house at 4.00 a.m. in the morning, cannot be said to be unnatural. The learned Counsel took us through the judgment and evidence available on record in support of his plea.
7) On the other hand, Sri. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Husband, opposed the same contending that the evidence available on record amply establishes cruelty. The Trial Court considered the evidence in detail and granted divorce, which warrants no interference. To support his plea, he relied upon the judgments reported in Kalapatapu Lakshmi Bharati V. Kalapatapu Sai Kumar1; S. Hanumantha Rao V. S.Ramani2; G.V.N. Kameswara Rao V. G. Jabilli3; Parveen Mehta V. Inderjit Mehta4; Samar Ghosh V. Jaya Ghosh5; Vidhya Viswanathan V. Kartik Balakrishnan6; 1 2017 (1) ALD 272 (DB) 2 (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 620 3 (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 296 4 (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 706 5 (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 511 6 2014 (6) ALD 187 (SC) 9 Vinod Kumar Subbiah V. Saraswathi Palaniappan7; and Dr. Keshaorao Krishnaji Londhe V. Mrs. Nisha Londhe8.
8) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Trial Court was right in granting divorce to the Petitioner on the ground of cruelty?
9) As the word 'Cruelty' is not defined in Hindu Marriage Act, it would be just and proper to refer to judgments on this aspect.
10) In S. Hanumantha Rao V. S.Ramani [cited 2nd supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"8. Before we deal with the submission it is necessary to find out what is mental cruelty as envisaged under section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Mental cruelty broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected to live with the other party."
11) In G.V.N. Kameswara Rao V. G. Jabilli [cited 3rd supra], the Apex Court held as under:
"9. Under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on a petition presented either by the husband or wife, the marriage could be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. 'Cruelty' is not defined in the Act. Some of the provisions 7 2015 (4) ALD 176 (SC) 8 AIR 1984 Bombay 413 (1) 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act were amended by Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Prior to the amendment, 'cruelty' was one of the grounds for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. Under that Section, "cruelty" was given an extended meaning by using an adjectival phrase, viz. "as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party". By the Amendment Act of 1976, "cruelty"
was made one of the grounds for divorce under Section 13 and relevant provision reads as follows:-
"Divorce (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party
(i) * * * * * (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty, or (i-b) * * * * *
(ii)-(ix) * * * * * The omission of the words, which described 'cruelty' in the unamended Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has some significance in the sense that it is not necessary to prove that the nature of the cruelty is such as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful for the petitioner to live with the other party. English Courts in some of the earlier decisions had attempted to define "cruelty" as an act which involves conduct of such a nature as to have caused damage to life, limb or health or to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. But we do not think that such a degree of cruelty is required to be proved by the petitioner for obtaining a decree for divorce.
Cruelty can be said to be an act committed with the intention to cause sufferings to the opposite party. 11
Austerity of temper, rudeness of language, occasional outburst of anger, may not amount to cruelty, though it may amount to misconduct."
12) In Parveen Mehta V. Inderjit Mehta [cited 4th supra], the Apex Court held as under:
"14. ...... Under the statutory provision cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act. Probably, the Legislature has advisedly refrained from making any attempt at giving a comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover all cases, realizing the danger in making such attempt. The accepted legal meaning in England as also in India of this expression, which is rather difficult to define, had been 'conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental), or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger' (Russel v. Russel [(1897) AC 395 and Mulla Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Volume II page 87]. The provision in clause (ia) of Section 13(1), which was introduced by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 68 of 1976, simply states that 'treated the petitioner with cruelty'. The object, it would seem, was to give a definition exclusive or inclusive, which will amply meet every particular act or conduct and not fail in some circumstances. By the amendment the Legislature must, therefore, be understood to have left to the courts to determine on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the conduct amounts to cruelty. This is just as well since actions of men are so diverse and infinite that it is almost impossible to expect a general definition which could be exhaustive and not fail in some cases. It seems permissible, therefore, to enter a caveat against any judicial attempt in that direction (Mulla Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Volume II, page 87).
12
13) In Samar Ghosh V. Jaya Ghosh [cited 5th supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to judgments on the subject held as under:
"46. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, this Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. [emphasis supplied]. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. [emphasis supplied]. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill-treatment."
"The word "cruelty" has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a 13 course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted." [Vidhya Viswanathan V. Kartik Balakrishnan].
What is cruelty simpliciter? It is not possible to comprehend the human conduct and behaviour for all time to come and to judge it in isolation. A priori definition of cruelty is thus not possible and that explains the general legislative policy - with sole exception of the Dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act - to avoid such definition and leave it to the Courts to interpret, analyse and define what would constitute cruelty in a given case depending upon many factors such as social status, background, customs, traditions, caste and community, upbringing, public opinion prevailing in the locality etc. It is in this background that the suggestion contained in para 2.12. of the 59 report was turned down and the limiting words, namely, "such cruelty that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent" were not incorporated on the view that "the Court would even in the absence of such words broadly adopt the same approach". [Dr. Keshaorao Krishnaji Londhe V. Mrs. Nisha Londhe].
14) From the above judgments, it is very clear that, it is necessary to prove that the nature of cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to the petitioner to live with other party.
Occasional acts of anger, rudeness of language, may not amount to cruelty, but continuous non-cooperation and 14 hostile attitude of either of the party can safely be termed as 'cruelty' coming within the purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
15) Coming to the case on hand, we have perused the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and RW1 to RW3. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the Appellant No.1/Wife and Respondent/Husband and the birth of Appellant No. 2 in U.S.A.
16) PW1 [Respondent/Husband] in his evidence deposed that, in the month of January 2020, he purchased a house, in his name, in U.S.A., upon which, the Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] was unhappy, as the house was registered in his name alone. According to him, in the year 2000, Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] gave $10,000 dollars to her father from their joint account without the knowledge and permission of her husband. When the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured, at the instance of PW1, for insufficient funds. On coming to know about the same, Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] started abusing PW1 in filthy language and continuously misbehaved by not attending to any household work properly.
17) PW1 further deposed that, after the birth of Appellant No. 2 in U.S.A., on 01.03.2003, the parents of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] came to U.S.A. and stayed with them. One week thereafter, at about 4.00 a.m., in the morning, when 15 the child [Appellant No. 2] was crying, he took him into his arms to console him. But, the Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] raised hue and cry and asked him to keep the child on bed. On the next day, the father of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] moved the child to another room, wherein he was not allowed to see and touch the child, more so, she called U.S.A. Police to home. The mother of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] also started abusing him and on her instigation called him as "Oray", "Vadu", and that he has to live like a dog in their house. In the month of May 2003, she deserted him and returned back to India [Bangalore] from U.S.A., along with her parents and the child [Appellant No. 2]. In the second week of June 2003, the elder sister [PW3] and brother-in-law of PW1 visited the parent's house of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] in Bangalore, and presented a gold chain to Appellant No.2. At that time, the father of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] demanded 50% share in the properties of PW1, failing which threatened to take revenge against PW1. So saying, returned the gold chain gifted to Appellant No.2.
18) PW1 further deposed that, on receiving invitation from Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1], he came to Tirupati from U.S.A. to attend the tonsure ceremony of Appellant No. 2 and sent his contact phone number to Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] through her cousin and was waiting for a phone call from 16 her. Without informing him, and in his absence, she and her parents conducted tonsure ceremony function of their son [Appellant No.2] on Tirumala Hills. He further deposed that, on one occasion while he was talking with Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] over the phone, she openly proclaimed that if killings are legal, she would have killed him. The mother of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] also threatened to kill instantly and added that if Rs.1,00,000/- is paid, their men will cut his and his sister's [PW3] head and bring them in plate.
19) PW3, who is the sister of PW1, in her evidence deposed that, in the second week of June, 2003, she and her husband went to Bangalore to see Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] and Appellant No. 2; when she gifted a gold chain to Appellant No. 2, Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] rejected and gave threats stating that she belongs to Kadapa district and if she wants, her people would bring PW1's head in a plate to her.
20) PW2, who is the driver of PW3, in his evidence, deposed that, PW3 and her husband went to Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] house at Bangalore. After sometime, the father of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] came out angrily stating that PW1 sent all the money earned to his sister [PW3]. Thereafter, he exhorted stating that, as he hails from Kadapa, they can do anything and that 50% share in the 17 properties of PW1 would be given to them, failing which they will cut PW1's head.
21) Before adverting to the evidence of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1], it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of RW2 and RW3.
22) RW2 is a servant maid in the house of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1], who in her evidence deposed that, Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] received PW3 and her husband cordially and politely when they came to meet them. After seeing the child [Appellant No. 2], they asked PW3 and her husband to have lunch, but they refused to take lunch stating that they have to return back to Tirupati as tickets for bus are reserved.
23) RW3, who is the father of Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1], in his evidence deposed that, he went to U.S.A. to see his grandson [Appellant No.2]. His happiness was short lived as PW1 completely neglected his responsibilities towards Appellants.
24) RW1 [Appellant No.1/Wife] in her evidence deposed that, in the year 2000, when her father [RW3] met with an accident, she returned to India to see her father [RW3]. As her father [RW3] could not mobilise funds for his treatment, after obtaining consent from PW1, she gave a cheque of $10,000 dollars to her father [RW3]. When the cheque was presented, it got dishonoured. She further deposed that, one 18 week after the birth of the child [Appellant No. 2], the relatives of PW1 wanted to come and see the child, but, she requested them to postpone their visit by few days because the child was suffering with fever and jaundice, and she is too weak to receive them. To such request, PW1 grew wild and started scolding her in front of her parents and did not allow her or the child to rest. She further deposed that, when PW1 tried to take away the child at 4.00 a.m., she tried to stop him, but, as he did not listen, she called the police only to restrain PW1 from leaving the house along with the child.
25) She further deposed that, she invited PW1 to attend the tonsure ceremony function of their child on 12.11.2003 at Tirumala Hills, but, PW1 informed them that he has no time to come to Bangalore, and that he would come to Tirupati and accompany them to Tirumala to attend the said function, but, however, he intentionally avoided attending the function. She further deposed that, though, they came to Tirupati a day before the tonsure ceremony and stayed in a hotel waiting for a phone call from PW1, but, he did not contact her even after having her contact details.
26) From the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and RW1 to RW3, it is evident that, Appellant No.1/Wife [RW1] took serious note of the incident of cheque dishonour, at the instance of PW1, 19 and became angry. In-fact, when PW1 came to Tirupathi from U.S.A. to attend the tonsure ceremony of his son [Appellant No.2] and was waiting for a phone call from RW1, even after sending the details of his whereabouts and contact details to her through her cousin; she and her parents without informing him and in his absence performed the tonsure ceremony of his son. After reconciliation in court, RW1 along with Appellant No. 2 joined PW1 in U.S.A. on 24.05.2004. However, she is said to have become more aggressive and started abusing PW1, and on one occasion, when PW1 refused to dress the child, she called the police to the house and finally deserted him on 04.10.2004 and since then staying with her parents. In-fact, the parents of Appellant No.1/Wife also used to address PW1 in a singular form "Oray" and "Vaadu" disrespecting him and threatening him to kill, which acts would exemplifies the mental agony caused to PW1.
27) As against the said version, there is contra version from the mouth of RW1 to RW3. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it can be said that the evidence on record is oath against oath.
28) The case on hand is somewhat identical to the case reported in Vinod Kumar Subbiah V. Saraswathi Palaniappan [cited 7th supra]. It was also a case where the Respondent was said to have been verbally insulting the 20 husband's family; threatening to lodge false police complaints, to commit suicide blaming the Appellant and his family etc. The claim of the Appellant in the said case was that he was put through intolerable mental agony and can no longer continue to be married to the Respondent. Dealing with the evidence adduced, the High Court observed that the allegations in the divorce petition are no more than "the ordinary wear and tear" that takes place in a marriage. The High Court held that the Appellant did not give details of the events of abuse by the Respondent towards his family or the cruelty that was meted out to him in the U.S.A. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed with the view and held as under:
"7 We have carefully considered the matter, and find that we are unable to uphold the conclusions of the High Court. The Appellant had duly pleaded instances of mental cruelty which he proved in evidence and documents. An examination of the divorce petition makes it abundantly clear that various allegations of cruelty were made out and a number of incidents were mentioned therein. Further evidence was submitted during the course of the Trial to substantiate these allegations, which is in keeping with Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC. Furthermore, we find that the Trial Court examined the evidence at great length and came to the reasoned conclusion that the actions of the Respondent amounted to cruelty. If a spouse abuses the other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot be termed as "wear and tear" of family life. Summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds cannot also be similarly viewed. Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home would also indubitably 21 result in cruelty to the other spouse. After a cursory discussion of the evidence which the Trial Court had discussed threadbare, the High Court was not justified to set aside the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court without giving substantiated reasons.
29) The counsel appearing for RW1 [Appellant No.1/Wife] would submit that even now the appellant is ready to continue her marital relationship with PW1. But as seen from the record, the Appellants and Respondent are living separately since 2004 and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any effort was made for reconciliation in these years. Separation for such a long time, may be not escape from the conclusion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, long time separation itself would lead to mental cruelty.
30) In Kalapatapu Lakshmi Bharati V. Kalapatapu Sai Kumar [cited 1st supra], while dealing with irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to long period of separation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:
"9. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh , the Supreme Court held that once the parties are separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage is broken down and that the Court, no doubt, would seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. It has further held that the consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which 22 has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.
10. One of the instances indicated by the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh (1 supra), which may be relevant in dealing with the case of mental cruelty is as under:
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"
11. In the light of the undisputed fact that the parties have been living separately for nearly 14 years, there may be no escape from the conclusion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. As held by the Supreme Court, a long time separation itself would lead to mental cruelty. Therefore, irrespective of the findings of the lower Court on the failure of the appellant to prove mental cruelty, she is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the sole reason that there is no possibility for reunion of the parties in order to live together. Since the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down, any attempt to force the parties to live together would tantamount to causing mental cruelty and would only prolong the mental agony of the parties for the rest of their lives."
31) In view of the above, though irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce, but long time separation would lead to mental cruelty and, as such, we feel that the order passed by the Trial Court, which is impugned in the appeal, warrants no interference. 23
32) Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the Order, dated 22.01.2008, passed in H.M.O.P. No. 111 of 2003, on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. No order as to costs.
33) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ___________________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 07.01.2022.
SM ..
24
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.M.A. No. 220 of 2008 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Sm Dt. 07.01.2022