Telangana High Court
K.V.Ramana Raja vs G.Suryakantam on 21 July, 2023
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.105 of 2010
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order dated 04.03.2010 in F.C.O.P.No.397 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Hyderabad.
2. One K.V.Ramana Raja/husband filed O.P for divorce against his wife G.Suryakantam/respondent under Section 13(i)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner in the trial Court examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 on his behalf and marked Exs.P1 to P3. Respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and also examined her father as R.W.2. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent on 12.07.2023 and also on 05.07.2023, in spite of conditional 2 order, as such this Court heard the arguments of appellant Counsel on 12.07.2023 and reserved the matter for Judgment. Perused the entire record and citations filed before the Court.
4. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband and respondent/wife as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. Petitioner is a Postgraduate in Business Administration and working as a Project Support Manager in H.P (India) Sales. Respondent is a graduate in Engineering and working as a Junior Civil Engineer in Ramki Infrastructure Private Limited, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Regarding the family background, petitioner/husband has two sisters and a widow mother aged about 62 years. His father died before performing the marriages of his sisters while they were at the age of 22 years, as such he took the responsibility of his family and performed the marriages of his sisters. The father of the respondent worked as A.G.M in Singareni Colonies Company Limited and the marriage of younger sister of the respondent was performed after her marriage. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was performed on 18.02.2006.
3
6. The appellant/petitioner mainly contended that respondent is not mingling with anybody and she is introvert and it continued till October, 2006. A series of allegations made by the petitioner were summed up by the trial Court in points which reads as follows:
"1. Respondent is physically introvert, is in the habit of keeping alone and not interacting with any of the members of, either her family or his family.
2. On 10.04.2006 i.e., within two months after their marriage, friends and family members of petitioner have arranged a party in Hotel Taj at Abids, Hyderabad on the birth day of the petitioner. During the entire party, respondent also participated just like other guests. It is not due to shy but her indifferent and moody attitude.
3. That the respondent depicted similar "Touch me not"
attitude in the entire honey-moon trip of one week in the month of March, 2006.
4. That the respondent used to remain frigid and cold in his physical interaction and intimacy with the respondent ends with one sided. The petitioner had unilaterally physical interaction and intercourse with the respondent, only 5 or 6 times during their eight months of marital life.
5. On 23.12.2006, petitioner wanted to celebrate the first anniversary engagement day by going out for lunch together and invited the respondent for Temple in the morning and lunch in the afternoon for which the respondent did not co-operate and went to her duty, because of which the petitioner turned into frustration, bitter, sour and disappointed.
6. On 18.02.2007, petitioner organized a get together on the first wedding anniversary at Orhis Restaurant. The respondent was one among the many guests in her approach.
4
7. Even on the engagement of her younger sister on 22.02.2007, respondent sat in a corner, as if, she lost something.
8. That when the petitioner tried to know as to why she is behaving in such a manner, she left to her parents house and returned two days thereafter.
9. In the month of April, 2007 respondent got restive when she did not get the expected increment. In the month of May, 2007 in a fit of rage, she tendered resignation and withdrew the same later.
10. That the respondent got "Depression", an ailment even prior to marriage and took treatment but either the respondent or her parents did not inform the same to petitioner, either at the time of marriage or subsequent thereto.
11. During the absence of petitioner, when his old mother suffered from eye infection, respondent though present in home, she did not take his mother to Doctor.
12. Finally in the month of July, 2007 respondent left the matrimonial home along with her clothes, her jewelry and also jewelry gifted by the petitioner, despite his trials to conciliate with the respondent."
7. Respondent denied all the allegations and stated that she hails from a very Orthodox traditional Brahmin family and was brought up in very decent and disciplined manner. At the time of marriage, her father spent 4 lakhs i.e., 2 lakhs towards gifts and 2 lakhs towards marriage expenses, apart from Lanchanalu and also gave motorcycle to the petitioner. She further stated that she has no history of depression and she has no such complication at any point of time. Petitioner never acted with independent thinking and he is more dependent on his mother 5 and sisters. He acts according to their tunes and also instructed her to follow the instructions of his mother and sisters without fail. Otherwise, she has to face serious repercussions. She tolerated the ill treatment of petitioner and his family members with a fond hope that they will change their mind set and behavior. The family members of the petitioner used to insult her for every small thing and never allowed her to mingle with them and warned her not to interfere in any of the family affairs. They treated her as stranger in their family and never cared her in any aspect either as new bride or daughter-in-law. They only interested in her salary and earnings. Her parents paid 3 to 4 lakhs to the petitioner and his family members to comply their demands and also engagement, wedding anniversary, petitioner's birthday was celebrated at the cost of her parents. Petitioner's family continued happily as long as she paid all her earnings and complied their demands. She further stated that initial rift has come due to non acceptance of the marriage alliance of petitioner's relatives to her younger sister and after the performance of her younger sister's marriage, her parents are unable to comply the demands of the petitioner and when his family members sensed the financial weakness of her parents, petitioner demanded her to give consent for divorce and also threatened her and her parents with dire consequences. In 6 September, 2007, petitioner, his mother and sister bet the respondent and necked her out from the matrimonial home. She along with her parents tried to meet them for several times and requested them to take her to the matrimonial house and in February, 2008, petitioners requested four months time for taking the respondent to the matrimonial home, but issued divorce notice. Still she is willing to join the petitioner forgetting all the past events.
8. Respondent/wife mainly contended that petitioner branded her as introvert and also alleged that she is suffering from mental depression. Petitioner did not examine his mother who was staying in the house, but examined outsiders regarding her behavior. Petitioner also did not examine any doctor to substantiate his version, as such she is suffering from mental disorder is baseless. Petitioner never stated that respondent is behaving against the Hindu Customs and Heritage and it is not the case of the petitioner that she is quarrelsome and he never stated that she behaved in such a way to reduce the respect of the petitioner or she behaved abnormally subjecting the petitioner to cruelty and petitioner has also not pleaded that she is not allowing him to participate in conjugal life. The respondent is a B-Tech graduate and 7 working as a Civil Engineer in a reputed company without any complaint and also attending her day to day routine and thus the said allegation is false and will not amount to cruelty.
9. R.W.2 in his evidence, clearly stated that he has no objection to bring medical records of the respondent to the Court and he has no objection to send the respondent for medical examination, but the petitioner failed to take steps to bring the medical records or to send her to medical examination.
10. The trial Court observed that petitioner and respondent lived together for 1 ½ year after the marriage and petitioner filed divorce petition on flimsy and baseless grounds and failed to establish the ground of cruelty. The separation between them is only for six or seven months that too on flimsy grounds. Therefore, the marital tie cannot be broken down and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the present appeal and mainly contended that respondent has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights, as such she is not decided to cohabit with him. Both of them are highly educated and employed, there is no physical or mental bonding between them. 8 Respondent did not cooperate with him in spite of his best efforts. Marriage did not work due to frigid and unwilling attitude of the respondent, she maintained distance from him. The trial Court failed to consider the principles laid down in the citations filed by him. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
11. The learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh,1 in which certain principles regarding cruelty in the matrimonial affairs were laid down and clearly held that they are only illustrative and not exhaustive and they read as follows:
"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty".
The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.1
(2007) 4 SCC 511 9
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical 10 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."
12. In the Cross-examination of P.W.1, several questions were posed to assess her mental ability or to establish that she was mentally disabled or to establish her mental disorder. She answered all the questions properly. In this case, the petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Respondent deserted him in September, 2007 and he filed petition for divorce on May, 2008 i.e., within one year from date of desertion. It is for the petitioner to prove that she deserted him without any reason, but he failed to do so. As he filed petition for divorce within one year, he is not entitled for the same on the ground of desertion. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. 11 Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. A too technical and hyper sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.
This Court in the case of K.Radharaju Vs. K.Seetharamaraju2, held as follows:
"A matrimonial home cannot be built by bricks and stones but only built by love and affection...
...Indian tradition and culture may not permit granting of divorce on trivial grounds. Law may not agree that small disputes could be a ground for divorce. As we have observed that a matrimonial home is built with love and affection and when such love and affection are absent, instead hatred has marred the homely atmosphere, the matrimonial home becomes hell. We are rather distressed to observe that love and affection between the parties have vanished and in its place seeds of hatred have been blossomed. Therefore, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served if they are 'ordered' to stay together. Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, apart from the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that the relationship between the parties has been irretrievably broken down and we have no other option than to grant a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties."
13. Admittedly, there is no compatibility between petitioner and respondent, though they are highly educated and employed. 2 2001 (6) ALT 350 12 The reason may be the cultural background of either families or lack of communication between the petitioner and respondent or the lack of care and concern between the couple. The petitioner had several expectations from the respondent and he was disappointed on seeing her attitude. Admittedly, there was cultural disparity between petitioner and respondent. Respondent says that petitioner and his family members spending amount very lavishly, whereas, petitioner says that respondent never mingle with his family members. Respondent contended that petitioner and his family members never allowed her to mingle with other family members and they put several restrains on her. In fact, petitioner married her only for her salary. Petitioner on seeing the respondent in matrimonial site, contacted her and went to see her with his family members and accepted for marriage. Accordingly, their engagement was done on 23.12.2005 and marriage was performed after two months i.e., on 18.02.2006. So, it is the choice of the petitioner and moreover, it is an arranged marriage. Petitioner always pointed out the respondent and simply stated that he tried his best, but she never cooperated.
14. Petitioner filed the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and alleged that respondent was suffering from mental 13 depression, but he has not referred her to medical examination or called for medical records, though her father admitted for the same in his Cross-examination for the reasons best known to him. It is for the petitioner to substantiate his version. He made allegation without any basis and also subjected her to Cross-examination with certain questions to assess her mental ability. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is not an expert to assess the mental ability of the respondent by putting certain questions in the Cross-examination. Petitioner contended that when he intended to take her to hospital, her parents took her and provided treatment in their native place, whereas respondent stated that her father was A.G.M in Singareni Colonies Companies Limited and they are having free medical facility and thus she was treated there.
15. There are certain misunderstandings between the couple. No doubt, the relationship between them was strained, but the Court cannot grant divorce on that ground, it must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. It is quite but common that trivial irritations and quarrels between the couples happen in day to day marriage life, but the petitioner magnified the same. Facts of each case differs, both of them lived together only for 1 ½ year and they were not blessed 14 with children. In the initial days of marriage, there will be difference of opinion between the couple and it is for them to sit and sort out the same, but the petitioner and respondent failed to do so. Petitioner went to an extent of filing a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and also went to an extent of making allegation that she is suffering from mental disorder without any basis. The trial Court considering all the aspects, dismissed the application, but the parties are not residing together from September, 2007 onwards till today i.e., for the past 16 years. As contended by the petitioner, respondent also not filed any O.P for restitution of conjugal rights, but in her counter she stated that she is willing to stay along with him, but it seems that after filing the case, they never resided together and due to long gap between them, the matrimonial bond had been ruptured beyond repair. Any further effort to keep it alive would become counter-productive. The entire substratum of marriage had already disappeared. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both of them are educated and are working. There was no physical or verbal abuse between the couple. It is true that what is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, 15 social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value systems. Petitioner feels that respondent was frigid even during physical intercourse. There was no deceit, involves no dowry issue either at the time of marriage or subsequent to marriage or any other pressure of any nature, but he could not understand the attitude of the respondent and he ultimately thought that he cannot live with her and filed O.P for divorce. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by a decree of divorce.
16. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated 04.03.2010 in F.C.O.P.No.397 of 2008 and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 21.07.2023 tri 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 105 of 2010 (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) DATE: 21.07.2023 TRI