Telangana High Court
Dharmapuri Surender vs D.Sreedevi on 7 June, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.19 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for appellant and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. D.Venkata Padmaja, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the record.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.12.2022 in O.P.No.1836 of 2015, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, the appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.
3. The appellant-husband filed O.P.No.1836 of 2015 against respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage between appellant and respondent dated 25.08.2013 on the ground of cruelty, contending as follows: 2
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 i. His marriage with the respondent was performed on 25.08.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. ii. The said marriage was consummated. They were not blessed with children. iii. They lived together lastly at Kothapet, Hyderabad. They lived happily for about three to four months. Thereafter, disputes arose between them.
iv. She started misbehaving with him and his family members.
v. She is working as a School Assistant. She insisted appellant to put up a separate residence. When he did not agree for living separately from his parents, she started propagating that he is impotent. vi. The well wishers and mediators held panchayat in which she made a false allegation against him saying that he is impotent. Appellant recorded the statements made by the 3 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 respondent before the elders that he is impotent.
vii. On 19.11.2014, after 15 days of the death of appellant's father, respondent left matrimonial home by taking all her belongings i.e., jewellery, clothes, etc. viii. Respondent subjected appellant to undergo mental agony with her acts.
ix. There is no possibility of reunion.
4. The respondent filed counter in the said OP denying the allegations made by the appellant-husband, contending as follows:
i. She is not a School Assistant as contended by appellant. She never worked as Teacher. ii. They lived happily for more than one year but not three to four months as alleged by the appellant.
iii. On 19.11.2014, her husband, his mother and sisters necked her out from the matrimonial home.4
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 iv. The appellant and his family members always used to state that the marriage was not up to their standards and if they had gone for another match, they would have got more than 10 lakhs of dowry, as the appellant is an Assistant Engineer and employee of TSRTC, Telangana State.
v. Appellant made false allegations against her to cover up his lacuna and to take away her properties.
vi. She never stated before the mediators or relatives that the appellant is impotent. He himself told that he is suffering from partial 'erectile dysfunction' and would be cured by treatment. Appellant did not care her request to get treatment.
vii. She is always willing to join the company of the appellant to lead happy marital life without any condition. She has resigned her job on 5 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 17.11.2014 on the force of her husband and his family members.
viii. She remained unemployed and has no source of income for livelihood.
ix. He is working as an Engineer in TSRTC and getting more than Rs.50,000/- per month towards salary and the mother of the appellant is also getting pension of Rs.12,000/- per month. There are no dependents on her husband.
5. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the OP filed by appellant and she has also filed counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
6. The respondent has also filed a petition vide O.P.No.378 of 2016 against the appellant-husband seeking maintenance.
7. To prove the said ground of cruelty, appellant had examined himself as PW-1, his mother as PW-2, his maternal uncle as PW-3, his sister and her husband as 6 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 PW-4 and PW-5. He has filed Exs.A1 to A16. To disprove the said allegations and also in proof of her claim of maintenance, respondent-wife had examined herself as RW-1 and filed Exs.B1 to B15. On consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary, vide common order dated 24.12.2022, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by appellant seeking dissolution of marriage, allowed the counter claim filed by respondent-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights and also dismissed O.P.No.378 of 2016 filed by respondent-wife seeking maintenance.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order in O.P.No.1836 of 2015 filed by appellant seeking dissolution of marriage, he preferred the present appeal. However, he did not prefer any appeal against the impugned order allowing the counter claim filed by respondent-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
9. It is also relevant to note that respondent-wife did not prefer any appeal against the impugned order 7 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 dismissing the OP i.e., O.P.No.378 of 2016 filed by her seeking maintenance.
10. The sum and substance of allegations made by appellant-husband against respondent-wife is that she started blaming him saying that he is impotent. To prove the same, he has examined PW-4 and PW-5 i.e., his sister and brother-in-law.
11. The aforestated facts would reveal that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 25.08.2013. It is an arranged marriage. There is no dispute that the appellant is working as an Assistant Engineer (Maintenance) in TSRTC. He has filed the aforesaid OP on 21.12.2015 i.e., after two years of marriage.
12. According to the appellant, he lived with respondent for about three to four months, whereas, according to the respondent, they lived happily for more than one year. 8
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
13. As discussed supra, according to the appellant, respondent blamed him that he is impotent. She has informed the said fact to PW-4, his brother-in-law.
14. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that during cross examination, appellant-husband has admitted that there were no differences between them for three to four months of marriage. They both used to speak to each other prior to the marriage. They have discussed about going to honeymoon after few months of marriage and the respondent has agreed for the same. The respondent never discussed with him about setting up of separate house after marriage. The respondent is well aware that she is going to live with his parents after marriage.
15. Appellant further admitted during cross examination that after three to four months of marriage with respondent, there were some petty issues between respondent and his mother, thereafter, respondent said that she does not want to stay with appellant. There 9 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 were no issues/disputes between appellant and respondent. The disputes between respondent and his mother became severe. He has informed the respondent that he cannot leave his parents and set up a separate house. The relationship between respondent and his sister are cordial.
16. The respondent met with an accident in January, 2014 and injured her left leg while going on her bike. His father expired on 02.11.2014 and on 19.11.2014, father of respondent came to appellant's house to take respondent and appellant refused saying that it is Amavasya. On the same day, parents, sister and brother of respondent came to appellant's house and there was a huge discussion with them and they did not agree for the request of appellant and took away respondent with them on 19.11.2014. He stopped respondent not to leave the house, but in vain. Therefore, there was a panchayat on 25.01.2015. Appellant spoke to respondent over phone. 10
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
17. Respondent started propagating that he is impotent. Appellant's brothers-in-law by name Anil and Subash told him that respondent is propagating that the appellant-husband is impotent. In the said panchayat held on 25.01.2015, no compromise took place. After panchayat, respondent has sent a legal notice to the appellant in the month of February, 2015 and he gave reply to the same. Second panchayat was held in the month of December, 2015 wherein also there was no settlement. Mr. Vidya Sagar, relative of the respondent negotiated with appellant's office colleague by name Habeebullah Khan about their issues, the same was not fruitful, therefore, he has filed the O.P.
18. Respondent has filed counter claim in the said OP seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She has also filed a DVC case and lodged a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
19. Appellant further admitted that he can't say the exact date of recording of voice message which was sent 11 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 by the respondent, which was marked as Ex.A6. Ex.A7 recording was done on the phone of his bother-in-law i.e., PW-5 while the respondent was leaving from appellant's home on 19.11.2014. Before or after marriage, he has not taken any treatment for impotency. Mr. Balachari, Advocate called the appellant to his office and threatened him to accept the respondent or else he has to face serious consequences. In Ex.A6 voice message, respondent repeated that the appellant is an impotent. His parents and sister never demanded additional dowry.
20. During cross examination, appellant (PW-1) further admitted that according to him, marriage was consummated immediately, but as per the respondent, it was little later. Respondent never stated to him that the marriage was not consummated, similarly regarding the alleged impotency. However, he has denied a suggestion that even as per the respondent, there was a small issue of erectile dysfunction, it was rectified. He went through the tests prescribed by Dr. Anitha on 09.09.2014 at Vijaya Diagnostic centre. He attended to the tests on first 12 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 day and he did not attend other two days. He has confronted the CC copy of prescription dated 08.09.2014 of Anitha Nursing Home on his name, but on perusal of the same, he denied. He further admitted that in the voice message i.e., Ex.A6, he understood the word "weakness" as his alleged impotency.
21. As per Ex.A6 (a), respondent stated as follows:
"Ekke Anil Anyaa emi cheppanedu, nenu me weakness guruchi, cheppani". Ne epudu kude cheppaldu, Nenu me weakness gurinchi nenu evari cheppaledy" Nem nalonee unchikunnanu"
22. Ex.A6 CD voice message is after the panchayat held on 25.01.2015. In the said panchayat in addition to five sisters of the appellant, Mr.Radhakrishna (PW-3)-his maternal uncle, Mrs. Suryakala-his maternal aunt, Dayanand-his maternal uncle, Krishnamachary-his sister's father-in-law (father of Mr.Anil), Anil, Venugopalachary, Subash-his brothers-in-law and Vittal Chary-elder of the community were also present. Ex.A7 is DVD video recording of incident dated 19.11.2014 along 13 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 with true translation. Ex.A7 is recording for about 15 minutes. The discussions went on that day for about 45 minutes. Ex.A7 was recorded by his brother-in-law by name Subash (PW-5). Ex.A8 is DVD of audio and video of the panchayat dated 25.01.2015 along with true translation. Ex. A8 was recorded by the appellant in his phone.
23. On 19.11.2014, there was a galata among his elders and the elders of the respondent. Thereafter, the elders of the respondent took respondent to her parents place. Only on 19.11.2014, he came to know that respondent herein has spoken to Mr.Anil (his brother-in-law) about his impotency. Till then, Anil never discussed the same with him. Anil is his eldest brother-in-law. On 19.11.2014, during the course of discussion, he came to know about the same by his mother and other brother- in-law Subash/PW-5. Anil directly told appellant (PW-1) regarding the said aspect only after 19.11.2014. 14
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
24. PW-1 during cross examination, further admitted that he clarified that he is perfectly normal and the marriage was consummated on 19.11.2014 and the respondent never complained about his impotency directly to him. He was not an impotent and now he is not impotent. He never had any problem and respondent has a problem. Respondent never stated to him nor complained about the conjugal happiness. She stated to his brother-in-law-Anil.
25. During the entire conversation under Ex.B11 and B12, Anil never stated about appellant's impotency. Except conjugal life issue, there is no other issue between him and respondent.
26. In the panchayat held on 25.01.2015, there was a discussion about Diwali Gifts (katnallu). The respondent in the same panchayat asked for her jewellery and belongings. Krishnamachary, father-in-law of appellant's sister (father of Mr.Anil) said that they will not be given now. The said portion of conversation is marked as 15 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 Ex.B13. His mother and Krishnamachary spoke during the panchayat on 25.01.2015 as per Ex.B14.
27. PW-2 is mother of the appellant. She has deposed that she has five daughters and one son. After getting all her daughters married, since she had one daughter-in- law, she showered all her affection and love on her and treated her as her daughter. But the respondent did not show any respect to her, her son and daughters. Respondent repeatedly blamed his son that he is not fit for her without disclosing any reason for the said statement.
28. After death of her husband and three days before Amavasya, respondent called her parents, sister and brother and forcibly went away by creating galata in the house. A panchayat took place before the elders for settlement of the disputes. Since the respondent made false allegation against her son that he is not physically fit for marital life and defamed her son in public, she is not fit to live with her son.
16
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
29. During cross examination, she admitted that her son and respondent are staying separately since six years. Respondent was called for panchayat at their house. Before the said panchayat, PW-2 never enquired the respondent as to whether she was having any marital problem with her son. She has also never enquired with her son. The CD played shown to her does not show the picture or audio by virtue of which it can be said that respondent is taking the suitcase while leaving the house. Krishnamachary is father-in-law of her elder daughter. He was the elder of the panchayat. Her second daughter is a divorcee. Respondent stated in the panchayat to Krishnamachary that the problem of nerves weakness also relates to the same.
30. PW-3 is maternal uncle of appellant. He deposed that he knows the appellant and respondent. In the month of January, 2015, parents and brother of the respondent came to his house at Osmanshahi locality. Her parents informed him that appellant is impotent and 17 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 that marriage between appellant and respondent was not consummated. Knowing the said fact, he did not disclose the same to them and he has suppressed the said fact and deceived them. They insisted PW-3 to call appellant immediately and ask him in their presence about impotency and non-consummation of marriage. PW-3 replied that appellant will be on duty and hence give him two days time to call appellant and ascertain the said fact. Thereafter, he has called appellant and informed about the said allegation made by parents of the respondent and appellant informed that the said allegations are false and the marriage was consummated. The said fact was informed to the parents of the respondent. Thereafter, the parents of the respondent have approached C. Krishnamachary and called for panchayat.
31. Panchayat took place after ten days of Sankranthi festival. In the said panchayat also, the parents of the respondent made the said allegation of impotency by using the word 'nerves weakness' and that it is erectile 18 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 function. Firstly, they made an allegation of impotency. Thereafter, they stated that it is nerves weakness. Thereafter, Mr. C.Krishnamachary informed that after getting the test report of the appellant, matter will be discussed further. The appellant declined the said advice saying that he does not require any test.
32. During cross examination, he has admitted that during that one year of his visits, neither the appellant nor the respondent informed him about the problems or issues of their marriage. He does not know what is erectile function. He understood the meaning of nervous weakness. Nervous weakness may be caused to any person at any time. He does not understand the meaning of word impotency. He has mentioned the word "impotency" in his chief affidavit. On hearing audio, witness identified the voice of Krishnamachary. Respondent told in the panchayat that her articles are in the house of the appellant and requested to return the same. After the panchayat, respondent came to him along with her sister-in-law and informed him that she is 19 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 ready to join the appellant. Then he informed them that they are also willing for their reunion, but the appellant is not accepting for the sme.
33. PW-4 is the sister of the appellant. She also deposed in the same line. However, during cross examination, she has admitted that the topic of "Diwali katnam" came in the discussion on 19.11.2014. She uttered that as to what was given by respondent's family for Diwali. The parents of respondent stated that they are not in a position to give Diwali gifts. Respondent did not use the word that appellant is impotent in panchayats held on 25.01.2015 and 23.12.2015.
34. According to her knowledge, the marriage was consummated. Prior to 19.11.2014, the aspect of potency of the appellant was not discussed in her presence. On 19.11.2014, her husband started discussion on topic of potency of the appellant. Respondent never spoke to her husband that he is impotent. The said topic came for discussion in the 20 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 panchayat held on 25.01.2015, wherein the said Krishnamachary asked about gold items to her mother and the appellant.
35. On 09.12.2015, respondent came to appellant's house to pickup her son. Respondent came along with several persons and her brother/appellant was absent in the house. Respondent came with local leaders, but PW- 4 did not know those local leaders. However, she has admitted that she had locked the doors.
36. PW-5 is brother-in-law of appellant. He deposed that after few days of diwali festival in 2013, respondent informed him that her husband/appellant herein is impotent. He was shocked and surprised to hear the said words and he kept quiet and felt sorry. Since it is a matter between appellant and respondent, he kept quite without disclosing the said fact to anybody. He was present in the meeting wherein also respondent openly made allegation that appellant is not fit for conjugal life. By hearing the said allegation, elders could not decide the 21 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 purpose for which they came. However during cross examination, he has admitted that his marriage is inter- caste marriage. He can understand the meaning of the word "impotency" and according to him, impotent is not fit for conjugal or sexual life. He never discussed the said issue with his wife or with the appellant. He did not discuss about this issue with any person.
37. Respondent examined herself as RW-1. However, during cross examination, she has admitted that she has no problem with PW-3, who is one of the elder in the panchayat. The elders in the panchayat asked the appellant to undergo test for potency. The relative of appellant by name Krishnamachary raised the issue of impotency of the appellant and discussed in the panchayat. Her father informed them about the said health issue of the appellant, on which they presumed it as impotency. She has informed her mother that appellant has some health issue, but she never disclosed the same to her father. Elders came to a decision to send 22 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 the appellant for potency test, on which she stated that it is not a problem and she has informed them about the main problem between them.
38. She further admitted that in the beginning days of their marriage, they have some problem in their marital life, but later they both were happy in their conjugal life. They had problem in first one month of their marriage. Thereafter, they had no problem. The same is recorded in the voice recording transcription in Ex.A6 at page No.5 i.e., Ex.A6/a. Whatsapp message dated 17.02.2015 (Ex.A5) was sent by her. It is Ex.A5/a. She did not reveal anything, except weakness of appellant in front of all. Mr. Balachary who issued Ex.A3 is her uncle, which was only a letter to the appellant, and he gave it as her uncle but not as counsel. He is not her counsel at any time.
39. In her counter, she has mentioned that from the beginning of the marriage, appellant was suffering erectile dysfunction. The appellant has love and affection towards his sisters so also his sisters have great love and 23 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 affection towards the appellant. Therefore, she has discussed the said issue with 5th sister and her husband i.e., PW-4 and PW-5. She has disclosed that appellant had problem during first night and requested his brother- in-law Subash to take the appellant to doctor. She did not mention about the said fact in her counter or in her examination in chief.
40. She has admitted that she used to maintain personal diary and she used to mention everything in her diary. On her complaint, Police have conducted counselling. She has also admitted about filing of DVC case and also an interlocutory application seeking interim maintenance. She never demanded for a separate house.
41. Learned Family Court considered the entire evidence including Exs.A5 to A16 and B1 to B15. Learned Family Court also analyzed the entire evidence. 24
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
42. In Paragraph No.28 of the impugned order, learned Family Court referred the allegations of the appellant that the following acts of respondent amounts to cruelty i.e.,
1. Using abusive language and misbehaving with appellant and his parents.
2. Demanding to set up separate residence.
3. Making false propaganda in the society and also among the relatives and community that appellant is impotent and by claiming herself as virgin.
4. Threatened him and his parents to involve them in false criminal cases.
5. Voluntarily left his conjugal society on 19.11.2014 i.e., after 15 days of his father's death, inspite of resistance.
43. As rightly held by the learned Family Court in Paragraph No.30 that respondent being an educated working woman, is not expected to use foul or abusive language against husband or his family members. As per the appellant, there were no differences between him and 25 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 respondent for three to four months. Later, there were petty issues between the respondent and his mother.
44. As discussed supra, even according to respondent there were no disputes between appellant and respondent. There were some petty issues between her and her mother-in-law. Even PW-2, mother of PW-1 admitted that she has shown love and affection towards the respondent. Thus, on the analysis of entire evidence, learned Family Court gave a specific finding that the said allegations does not constitute cruelty. They are petty issues. The marriage was consummated and the said fact was admitted by appellant in his cross examination. Even according to respondent, appellant is suffering with nervous weakness and erectile dysfunction. It is curable. Therefore, respondent is interested to lead conjugal life with the appellant. Therefore, she has filed counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
45. As discussed supra, the appellant filed the aforesaid OP for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 26
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 Cruelty is not defined in any statute. Learned Family Court and this Court has to come to a conclusion as to whether the allegations made by a spouse amounts to cruelty.
46. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 1 , in Paragraph No.101, Hon'ble Apex Court held certain instances of mental cruelty which are illustrative but not exhaustive and the same is extracted below:
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 1 2007 (4) SCC 511 27 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 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 28 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 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 sterilization 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.
(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.
47. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 2, the Apex Court considered "cruelty" including physical or mental cruelty and certain factors to determine the same. 2 2006 (4) SCC 558 29 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
48. As discussed supra, the allegations made by appellant against respondent does not amounts to cruelty.
49. Appellant filed aforesaid OP against respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the burden lies on him to prove the same. He has to prove the same by producing legally acceptable and cogent evidence.
50. As discussed supra, to prove the cruelty, Appellant examined P.Ws.3 to 5. But there is assertion in the petition filed by him i.e. O.P.No.1836 of 2015 that the parents went to P.W.3, informed him that the Appellant is impotent. There is reference with regard to the same. It is relevant to note that, even there is no assertion in the OP that the respondent informed P.Ws.4 and 5, his sister and brother-in-law that Appellant is impotent. There is no reference of P.W.4 and P.W.5 in the OP. On the other hand, Appellant himself admitted that the marriage was consummated and that there is no problem to lead 30 KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023 conjugal life with the respondent. Even according to respondent, there is no problem or issue in leading conjugal life with Appellant. It appears mediators/ relatives of the Appellant created problems.
51. According to the respondent, Appellant suffered erectile dysfunction for some time and thereafter it was cured. Respondent specifically contended that the marriage was consummated. She has petty issues with her mother-in-law.
52. Thus, though the appellant examined PWs-2 to 5, he failed to prove the same. The only serious allegation made by him is that respondent started propagating in the society that appellant is an impotent. Respondent denied the said fact. According to her, appellant is suffering with erectile dysfunction and nerves weakness for some time. Thereafter, there was no problem. It is curable. However, she has not disclosed the said fact to anybody. Therefore, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is not useful to prove the said allegation. 31
KL,J&SKS,J F.C.A.No.19 of 2023
53. On consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by appellant/husband holding that he failed to prove cruelty. It is a reasoned order and well founded. Appellant herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said reasoned order. Thus, the present appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J ________________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 07-06-2024 PRN/vvr