Telangana High Court
Dammu Murli Mohan vs Smt. D. Suhasini on 9 June, 2023
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha, G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
AND
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.57 of 2009
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani) This appeal is filed by the appellant - husband who was the petitioner in O.S.No.639 of 2006, aggrieved by the decree and order of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2008, in dismissing the petition filed by him for divorce under Sections 27(1)(d) and 31 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
2. The case of the appellant - petitioner was that his marriage with respondent took place on 23.01.1993 at Munnurukapu Sangam, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. The same was registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Both the parties were Hindus. However as the rituals required under Hindu Marriage Act were not followed and the marriage was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the petition was filed under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The marriage was 2 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 consummated. The petitioner was serving as an Officer in Indian Information Service and was employed as Assistant News Editor in Doordarshan, Hyderabad at the time of marriage. The father of the petitioner was an I.A.S. Officer (who had retired). The respondent was a Post Graduate and her father was also an I.A.S. Officer, who worked in Karnataka State (who had also retired). Thus, both the parties belong to higher strata of society, highly educated and decently placed. After the marriage, both the parties resided together in the house of the father of the petitioner at Jubilee Hills. During the wedlock, a girl child by name Harshitha was born to them on 01.03.1996. After the birth of the child, the attitude of the respondent took a strange turn. She started showing aversion to live with the parents of the petitioner and insisted the petitioner to separate from the joint family, against the wishes of the petitioner. When the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to separate from the joint family, the respondent became frustrated and several times insulted the parents of the petitioner without any justification. As such, the petitioner took a decision of separating from his parents due to the pressure by the respondent. They started living separately in Habsiguda, Hyderabad in a separate house by investing huge amount. The respondent being 3 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 accustomed to luxurious life used to pressurize the petitioner to find ways and means to earn some more money which caused friction between the parties. As such, the life of the petitioner has never been peaceful or harmonious even after coming out of the house of his father. The respondent never cooked for the petitioner. Since 1997, she even stopped talking to the petitioner nor attended to any needs of the petitioner. She became more and more averse towards the petitioner and closed the doors of the marital life completely from 1998 onwards.
2.1. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent started suspecting his character that he was having extra-marital intimacies with other ladies which was infact only her imagination without any factual basis. Whenever he used to get phone calls from his colleagues and friends, she used to suspect him and abuse him in a wild language and had shown negative attitude towards the petitioner. The petitioner insisted the respondent to explain as to why she was not allowing him to lead marital life with her. She replied that she was suspecting him of having illegal contacts with several ladies. The petitioner tried to convince her and make her understand that there was no truth in such allegations and it was only 4 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 her imagination. The respondent was adamant and became more and more aggressive.
2.2. He further submitted that from his childhood, there was an old maid servant by name Venkatamma in his father's house who was attached to the family. Right from the earlier years of the petitioner, she used to attend on him and the petitioner treated her like his own mother. He was sentimentally attached to her and had high regard towards her. When the petitioner separated from his parents, the said Venkatamma also followed him and stayed with the family of the petitioner in Habsiguda. The respondent targeted her to exhibit her anger against the petitioner by insulting her, by hurling wild abuses and by treating her as an unwanted maid servant. She used to behave in such a manner only to hurt the sentiments of the petitioner and to derive sadistic pleasure. She picked up quarrel with the said maid servant on 02.12.2003 when the petitioner was present in the house and started abusing her in a very filthy language. The petitioner tried to pacify the respondent. It caused anger to the respondent and immediately she took her chappal and tried to slap the said Venkatamma with it and when the petitioner went to rescue the said 5 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 Venkatamma, the respondent threw the chappal on the petitioner uttering him as a bastard. In such a fit of anger, the respondent slapped the maid servant indiscriminately, bundled her belongings and threw them out and necked her out of the house. The respondent did not substitute any servant maid in her place due to which the life of the petitioner became miserable as there was nobody to look after his needs. The respondent always abused him and never gave him the conjugal bliss. She always used to call him "Bastard" and use filthy language.
2.3. He further submitted that some of his friends used to send certain short messages (SMS) to his cell phone which were obnoxious or abusive. He was never in the habit of answering such messages and used to ignore them, but the respondent on seeing such messages used to become aggressive and took them very seriously. On 25.06.2006 in the morning hours, when the petitioner was watching Sunday T.V., the respondent picked up a quarrel and started shouting in a high-pitch using filthy language as usual. As the petitioner did not respond to them, she became hysteric and pounced upon him and fisted him indiscriminately calling him bastard, womanizer and attributing womanizing even to his 6 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 father and brothers. Further, she took away her Mangala Sutram from her neck and threw it on the face of the petitioner and uttered that she was no more interested to continue as his wife. The sudden assault by the respondent caused a panic situation to the petitioner. He tried to pacify her, but she did not listen. By the time she started shouting at the petitioner, two of the friends of the petitioner by name, Vasant and Subrahmanyam came to the house on a casual visit. The petitioner persuaded the respondent not to create scene in front of his friends. Inspite of it, she continued her raze and rampage and in their presence, she uttered abusive language and threw the Mangala Sutram on the face of the petitioner. The Petitioner became awfully ashamed in front of his friends and had to leave the house along with his friends only to save the situation. He returned to the house in the evening hours at about 6.00 P.M, and found that the house was locked. The respondent went away with the child by taking all her belongings without even leaving the dining table indicating that once for all, she left the petitioner. He tried to contact her on her cell phone, but there was no answer. Till the next day also there was no communication from the respondent. He made phone calls to the 7 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 father of the respondent, but he expressed his surprise that she did not come to his house at Bangalore.
2.4. For about 3 or 4 days the petitioner searched for the respondent and the kid and could not trace them which caused any amount of agony and anquish to him. Subsequently he came to know that the respondent took a separate house more than a month prior to the date of her departure from the house and started living at Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad with the child and that the incident on 25-6-2006 was a predetermined and preplanned one only to find a ruse for her departure from the house. 2.5. He further submitted that for the last 8 years, there was no matrimonial bliss to him from the respondent and the respondent once for all left him in an unsavory manner. Thus the matrimonial bond was irretrievably broken and there were no signs of reconciliation. The petitioner tried to establish communication with the respondent in vain. Once he went to the house of the respondent at Srinagar Colony, but she shut the doors of the house shouting that she never wanted to see the face of the petitioner any more. She did not even allow the petitioner to see his 8 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 child. The petitioner contending that those acts of the respondent amounted to cruelty, filed the petition seeking divorce.
3. The respondent filed counter admitting the relationship between her and the petitioner and that the petitioner was an Officer in Indian Information Service and that he was posted as Additional Secretary, Tourism and Culture Department, Government of A.P. She also admitted that the petitioner tied Mangala Suthra to her and that out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a baby child by name Harshitha, but denied that there were frictions between her and her in-laws. She submitted that as the petitioner was working as Assistant News Editor, Doordarshan located at Ramanthapur, which was about 20 Kms. from the house of his parents, he shifted his residence from Jubilee Hills to Uppal to reduce the fuel expenditure. The change of residence was to enable him to concentrate on his work more than spending time in travelling. Though she was highly educated, the petitioner due to his male ego kept the respondent away from working. She denied that she demanded for a luxurious life and submitted that infact it was the petitioner who had all the luxurious habits. He purchased a Pistol for Rs.2 lakhs and a home theatre for Rs.50,000/-.
9 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 The petitioner was always living beyond his means. Ever since the date of marriage, he had not even presented a saree to the respondent. She denied that she was not in talking terms with the petitioner or that she had closed the doors of marital life and contended that they along with the child had gone on holiday trips to various places on several occasions and celebrated the birthday of the child by hosting parties and the pictures taken on such occasions were evidence which would demonstrate that the allegations made by the petitioner were all concocted. She denied that she was in the habit of suspecting the petitioner and abusing him. She contented that there was not even a single whisper made by the petitioner that he had brought the attitude of the respondent to the notice of her elders at any time.
3.1. She further submitted that the maid servant Venkatamma left the job since she was about 75 years old. She always respected her and never treated her as a servant. She submitted that the petitioner being a government servant was provided with a cell phone. The petitioner though receiving obnoxious and abusive messages through his cell phone never complained to the authorities. On the contrary appeared to have been 10 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 derived vicarious pleasure from the same, particularly in the light of fact that such messages were coming from only one number which apparently belonged to one lady by name Ms.Sudha. The data collected by the respondent would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was guilty. To avoid the situation, he was making baseless allegations against the respondent who was highly traditional and believed in keeping up family relations. The petitioner confessed to her that his friend Sudha was sending the SMSs and was trying to blackmail him, but she had all reasons to believe that the mere friendship claimed by the petitioner with Ms.Sudha had gone beyond friendship which had become a matter of concern.
3.2. She further submitted that the petitioner was transferred from Doordarshan to Social Welfare Department at Secretariat which again involved lot of travelling. As such, the petitioner personally took his daughter and admitted her in Jubilee Hills Public School and for the convenience of the child, looked for a house at Srinagar Colony. The attitude of the petitioner changed towards the respondent drastically and his late coming home had no answers. The petitioner humiliated and ill-
11 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 treated the respondent. In view of the family status and awareness of the fact that any hasty decision on her part would complicate the situation and would also cost the petitioner of his job, she did not lodge any complaint with the Police with a fond hope that good sense would prevail over the petitioner and would mend his ways.
3.3. She further stated that after shifting to Srinagar Colony, the petitioner did not join her company and started living with his parents. Unable to bear the expenditure of the house rent and to meet her requirements, she made several attempts to talk to the parents of the petitioner, who shut the doors on her face. The petitioner after several requests consented to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance and paid from June 2006 to November 2007 and thereafter, stopped to pay the same. Hence, the respondent had to vacate the house at Srinagar Colony and shift to her brother's house at Mehdipatnam. The petitioner filed the present petition projecting as if the respondent deserted him and concocted a story and filed the O.P. with false and baseless allegations.
12 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 3.4. The respondent further submitted that, during the course of reconciliation proceedings, the respondent agreed and joined the company of the petitioner at his parents' house. During her short stay, the respondent was humiliated and was put to untold misery and hardship by the petitioner and his parents. She was necked out of the house on 25-06- 2007 by the parents of the petitioner, while the petitioner was away on duty. The respondent immediately contacted the petitioner, but he expressed his helplessness. Having no other option she had to return to her brother's house at Mehdipatnam. All the allegations surfaced only after June,2006 and no where the petitioner stated that he had brought the issue to the notice of the parents of the respondent nor issued any notice before filing this petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got examined his friend Vasantha Ram as PW.2, maid servant Smt. M. Venkatamma as PW.3 and his car driver Srinivas Reddy as PW.4 and got marked a marriage photograph as Ex.P1. The respondent examined herself as RW.1. No exhibits were marked on her behalf.
13 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009
5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned judge, Family Court, Hyderabad dismissed the petition.
6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.12.2008, the petitioner - husband preferred this appeal contending that the Family Court failed to note that the respondent made baseless allegations that he was constantly getting SMSs from one single number which belonged to Ms.Sudha and having said so, the respondent had not examined any witness which formed the basis of cruelty. The respondent though made counter allegations against the appellant but failed to establish the same, the effect of such wild allegations would tantamount to cruelty. The court below except noting that the appellant admitted that he went on family outings with respondent to various places, failed to appreciate that when the respondent was suspecting the appellant, he would have derived no pleasure in family outings. The Court below failed to note that it was in the process of reconciliation proceedings, the respondent joined the company of the appellant at the intervention of the Court for a short period of 45 days only which was recorded by the Court vide docket proceedings on 22.06.2007. The Court below failed to note that on 22.06.2007, the 14 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 respondent had not made any complaint to the Court as to the alleged ill- treatment meted out to her during the entire stay of 45 days. But strangely the Court below noted that the respondent was necked out on 25.06.2007. The Court below failed to note that the respondent never complained about the alleged necking out even on the next date of hearing and failed to note that if really the respondent was necked out of the house, there could have been a complaint either to the Court or to the police. The Court below committed a serious error in not even referring to O.P.No.898 of 2007 filed by the respondent for restitution of the conjugal rights which the respondent had withdrawn unconditionally. By withdrawing the O.P. filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights, the intention of the respondent was clear to put an end to the matrimonial tie which would demonstrate irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The differences between the appellant and the respondent were so serious that the same were beyond the point of repair and prayed to allow the appeal by granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the appellant and respondent dated 23.01.1993.
15 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009
7. Heard Kum. Samhitha on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant on record, Sri Rohit Pogula. There is no representation on the respondent side even though the matter was adjourned on several occasions.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties were living separately for the past 14 years. There was no chance of reconciliation between the parties. The marriage was a deadwood, broke down irretrievably and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhendu Das Vs. Rita Mukherjee1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by exercising its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted divorce observing that when the marriage was totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and had broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case would not provide a ground in law on which divorce could be granted, as the appellant and respondent had been living separately for more than 17 years and there was no possibility of the parties living together, dissolved the marriage 1 (2017) 9 SCC 632 16 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 observing that there was no purpose in compelling the parties to live together in matrimony.
9. On a perusal of the record, the appellant - petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. He contended that the respondent insisted him to put up a separate family, suspected his character, attributed womanisation, used filthy language against him, deprived him of conjugal bliss, threw Mangala Suthra on his face, insulted the maid servant and when he went to her rescue, she threw chappal on him and left him without informing him, which amounted to cruelty.
10. He examined himself as PW.1 and filed his evidence affidavit on the same lines of his petition. Though he contended in his affidavit that the respondent insisted for a separate residence, but admitted in his cross- examination that as he wanted to live separately from his parents, he shifted his house to Ramanthapur because of the distance and also to effectively take care of the printing press. He admitted that he owned an offset printing press at Ramanthapur along with his brother. The distance between his residence in Jubiliee Hills to his office was about 30 Kms.
17 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 His brother Mr.Suresh was the owner of the press. Subsequently, after his brother getting into a Government job, his wife took over the printing press. His wife contributed some amount for running the press. He mortgaged his wife's jewellery.
11. The above admissions made by PW.1 in his cross-examination would prove that the allegations made by him that the respondent forced him to take a separate house was found to be false.
12. His contention that for the establishment of a separate house, he had to invest huge amount was also found to be false by his admission that his wife brought sofa set, dining table, refrigerator, kitchen utensils, cot, etc. When the entire household articles were brought by the respondent and the respondent contributed money for running the press and gave all her jewellery, which the petitioner admittedly mortgaged, the allegation of the petitioner that she pressurized him for spending for luxurious living appeared to be false. The allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent never cooked food for him was also found to be false by his admission in his cross-examination that sometimes, his wife used to cook and he tasted.
18 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009
13. The allegation made by him that the respondent stopped talking to the petitioner from the year 1997 and closed the martial life since 1998 was found to be false as the petitioner himself admitted in his cross- examination that he went on vacations, picnics, marriages, movies, hotels and hosted parties along with his wife. He stated that:
"It is true that we went to Bhadrachalam along with my friends and their families, but I do not remember the date. It is true that I along with my wife went to kerala along with Mr. & Mrs. Lord Venkateswarulu for a holiday. It is true that I went to vizag along with my wife and stayed there for three days.
It is true that I went to Srisailam along with my wife and my friend Mrs & Mr. Suresh and stayed there at forest guest house. I went to Kakinada & Rajamundry along with my wife and daughter.
It is true that we celebrated our daughters 8th birthday at Habsiguda and my sister-in-laws also attended the function.
It is true that we celebrated our daughter's ninth birthday at central excise guest house. Myself and my wife sang three duet songs in Telugu in that function. We attended Mr. Ramesh's party at Maredpally Where we sang two duet songs. I attended Mr. Suresh Kumar's party in the year 2004. I also sang duet songs along with my wife. I attended Suresh Kumar's party at Pochampally in the year 2006. Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Raja Reddy also attended. I attended Mr. Prakash my wife's relative on 27th January 2006. I attended New Year's Eve party at Shiva Kumar farm house near Gandipet along with my wife, where Mr. & Mrs. Narsimha Rao, DCP also attended. I attended my sister-in-law's marriage by name Shanti at 19 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 Banglore in the year 1999 along with my parents and friends and also attended my brother-in-Law's marriage on 14th June, 2003. I also attended the Reception on the same day along with my friends.
I also attended my second sister-in-law's marriage at Lutheran church and attended the reception along with my friends at Hotel Viceroy on the same day evening. I also celebrated my daughter's 10th birthday on 1st March, 2006 at cycling Velodrome Jamia -Islamia. My parents and in-laws attended the function. We also sang duet songs. It is true that we attended 25th wedding Anniversary on 19th April, 2005. I have seen movies with my wife like Baba, Balu, Road, Indira etc. I have attended the marriage of my cousin Nirupama at Nuziveedu and also attended my cousin chakrabarthy's marriage at Machilipatnam along with my wife. In the year 2002, I along with my wife & daughter went to New Delhi and stayed there at Haryana guest house."
14. All these admissions made by the petitioner in his cross- examination would disclose that the petitioner along with the respondent attended so many functions, parties, social visits, going out on vacations, picnics and singing duet songs at parties and was watching movies together. His contention that they were not in talking terms with each other and there was no cordial relationship between them appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable.
20 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009
15. With regard to the alleged incident that the respondent threw chappal upon him and abusing him in filthy language as 'bastard' while he was trying to rescue the maid servant Venkatamma, the petitioner stated in his cross-examination that he did not remember the date of incident. He stated that when the respondent threw the chappal on Venkatamma, his maid servant, it fell on him. Thus even if the alleged incident was true, it cannot be considered as cruelty towards the petitioner, as he admits that the chappal accidently fell on him.
16. He got examined the said Venkatamma as PW.3 in support of his contention. PW.3 though filed her chief affidavit corroborating the contentions of the petitioner, she admitted in her cross-examination that she worked in the petitioner's father house at Jubilee Hills. When the petitioner moved to Uppal, one Seethamna was working in the house. There was another maid servant in the house of the petitioner. She joined the petitioner after they moved to Habsiguda house. She joined them after 2 years of the petitioner moving to the Habsiguda house. She used to cook personally and used to give carrier to the petitioner. The petitioner used to come home at 8:00 P.M. or 9:00 P.M. The petitioner shifted his residence 21 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 to Uppal because of the distance between his residence and work place. She left the house on the same day of the quarrel with the respondent. She and respondent used to quarrel even before the said incident and used to exchange words which led to the quarrel. She did not remember the date or the year when the quarrel took place between her and the respondent. The respondent threw chappal on her which ultimately fell on the petitioner. She also admitted that the father of the petitioner got a job to her daughter in Osmania University at Hyderabad. Her daughter was living at O.U., campus in a rented house and she was looked after by her daughter since last 3 years.
17. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, the incident of the respondent throwing chappal on the petitioner took place in the year 2003, but PW.3 filed her affidavit stating that in the month of April, 2006, she was necked out from the house by the respondent in the presence of the petitioner by rising a petty quarrel against her. Thus there were contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 with regard to when the said incident took place. The evidence of PW.3 also was not believable due to 22 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 her admission that her daughter got a permanent employment with the help of petitioner's father.
18. With regard to the allegations that the respondent threw Mangala Suthra on petitioner's face in front of his friends by name Vasant and Subramanyam, the petitioner got examined one Marri Vasantha Ram as PW.2. PW.2 stated that he was working as Hostel Warden in Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (SAAP) for the past 20 years. The petitioner's father worked as Director and Vice Chairman of SAAP for about 3 years from 1980 to 1983. Ever since then he was in regular touch with the family of the petitioner. Being the subordinate of the petitioner's father, he used to have close acquaintance with the petitioner and it continued for decades. With regard to the incident on 25.06.2006, he stated that it was a Sunday, as usual he visited the house of the petitioner by which time the petitioner's other friend Subrahmanyam was also there. By the time he reached there, the respondent was shouting at the petitioner at the pitch of her voice using bad language stating that the petitioner's family was a wretched one and all the male members were womanizers including the petitioner's father and they would go around 23 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 brothel houses and it was shameful for her to stay with the petitioner. The petitioner tried to stop her from using such language and shouting in such a manner, on seeing him and Subrahmanyam, in order to avoid her shameful utterings. But the respondent continued her rampage and ultimately removed her Mangala Sutram from her neck and threw it on the face of the petitioner stating that she hated him and cursed herself for being his wife. Being embarrassed, he and Subrahmanyam told the petitioner that they would come later and meet him after some time. Being ashamed with such behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner also accompanied them leaving the house. Later on, the next day, i.e., on 26-6- 2006, the petitioner told him that the respondent locked the house by taking all the furniture items and left the house with the female child without disclosing her whereabouts and the petitioner could not found them anywhere.
19. In his cross-examination, PW.3 stated that he came to the house of the petitioner in the evening on 25.6.2006. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, the incident took place on 25.06.2006 in the morning hours while he was watching Sunday T.V.. PW.3 stated that Subramanyam was 24 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 present outside the house when he visited the petitioner's house, the main door was open, when he went inside, the petitioner and the respondent were quarrelling in their drawing room. While he was entering the house, he heard them quarelling. Inspite of knowing that the petitioner and the respondent were quarrelling, he went inside. He witnessed the quarrel between them in their drawing room. After he entered the drawing room of the petitioner, after 5 minutes of quarrel, the respondent threw her Mangala Suthra on the face of the petitioner.
20. The admission made by PW.2 that he was subordinate to the father of the petitioner Sri D. Rama Krishnaiah who was M.D., when he joined in SAAP in September, 1981 and D. Rama Krishnaiah helped him in getting the job, renders his evidence suspicious. His evidence appeared to be false created for the purpose of the case.
21. The petitioner got examined his driver as PW.4 to prove that the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and used filthy language against the petitioner. PW.4 filed evidence affidavit stating that the respondent used to pressurize the petitioner to earn illegally, but turned around in the cross-examination and stated that he never heard the 25 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 respondent asking the petitioner to earn illegal money. He also stated in his chief examination that the petitioner told him that in the month of June 2006, in the presence of his friends Vasant Ram and Balasubrahmanyam, the respondent removed her Mangala Suthram from her neck and threw it on his face for no fault of him.
22. The said evidence is hearsay and no reliance can be placed upon it. PW.4 was a private driver of the petitioner and appears to be a planted witness.
23. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 appeared to be planted as they were sub-ordinates to the petitioner and working for him. They and their family members were benefited either by the petitioner or his father. Thus, the trial court rightly disbelieved their evidence and dismissed the petition opining that the petitioner failed to establish the allegations of cruelty, the ground on which the petitioner sought for divorce.
24. Hence, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad to set aside the same. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in Sukhendu Das 26 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 Vs. Rita Mukherjee (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court gave the relief under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which was not available to the High Courts. As such, we consider it fit to dismiss the appeal confirming the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.639 of 2006 dated 31.12.2008.
25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 31.12.2008 in O.P.No.639 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. No costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ____________________________ Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI June 09, 2023 Ss 27 Dr.CSL,J & Dr.GRR,J F.C.A.No.57 of 2009 THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA AND THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.57 of 2009 June 09, 2023 ss