Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vejendla Luke Paul vs Bandaru Neena Sravanthi The State Of ... on 30 November, 2022
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2216 OF 2010
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the petitioner, who is respondent in M.C.No.54 of 2009, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, challenging the order, dated 16.08.2010, under which the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, directed the respondent herein to pay maintenance of Rs.3,600/- per month.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, in the maintenance case is as follows:
(i) The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 11.04.2008 at the house of Prayer Ministries Church at Ramakrishnapur, Manchirial, Adilabad, as per Christian customs and tradition. It was consummated. Prior to that, the father of the respondent enquired the Pastor by name K. Vedamani for marriage alliances to his son and that who can afford to give dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to his son. The Pastor K. Vedamani 2 proposed the petitioner as a suitable alliance to his son.
Accordingly, the marriage was fixed. The parents of the petitioner agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, Rs.50,000/- towards marriage expenses and 10 Tulas of gold, etc. The respondent is Junior Research Fellow in Indian Institute of Medical Technology, Tarnaka, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.
(ii) At the time of negotiations, it was agreed that wife should live with the husband at Hyderabad, but after marriage, her father-in-law requested the petitioner to stay with them in their official quarter at Ramakrishnapur. On 13.04.2008, they have planned for reception at Telugu Baptist Church, Kannavarithota. For that purpose, on 12.04.2008, they have reached Mancherial Railway Station to go to Guntur, but her father-in-law sent for them back to Ramakrishnapur from Railway Station and created scene alleging that she did not perform "Yarnalu". The petitioner's uncle and aunt, who are then with her, tried to pacify the matter, but her father-in-law raised his voice and fisted on her face saying that she was not following his instructions. On seeing this highhanded conduct, her uncle and aunt Mr. & Mrs. Rev. K. Prakasha Rao came to her 3 rescue, but they were pushed aside by the respondent and his parents.
(iii) As a result, they sustained simple injuries and got frightened. In such circumstances, they thought of giving police report, but control themselves since it was on the very next day of marriage. In any event, as directed by her father-in-law, they have distributed Yarnalu and managed to come out and reach Guntur in the evening train. Even prior to Reception on 13.04.2008, her father-in-law made illegal demand of gold bracelet and Hero Honda Motorcycle. On 15.04.2008, bidding good bye to all customs and traditions, the petitioner was taken to matrimonial house at Ramakrishnapur.
(iv) On 16.04.2008 while she was attending to household work, the father-in-law abused her on trivial issue and rudely and vulgarly frightened her. Taking advantage of this, her brother-in-law David Paul beat her with the slipper in the presence of the respondent. However, he did not come to her rescue and supported his parents and brother. On the same day, she informed the same to his uncle Rev. K. Prakasha Rao and on hearing this, he developed heart attack and admitted in private hospital, Chilakaluripet on the same day. 4
(v) Even since 16.04.2008, she was put up untold mental agony due to behavior of the respondent and his father. During absence of the respondent, his father used to insist upon to sleep on the floor beside him in the main hall. She was constrained to obey him to escape his wrath. The respondent used to visit Ramakrishnapur from Hyderabad at weekends. The room allotted to them was without any bolt and used to be kept open. Her father-in-law used to enter into the bedroom frequently and disturbed their privacy only to show his domination. When she questioned about this attitude of supremacy, the true colour of the respondent and his parents came out. It was understood that, the said behavior was to remind her that she should bring gold bracelet, Hero Honda Motorcycle and balance of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was actually demanded by them as dowry. When she expressed her inability to comply these greedy demands, her father-in-law threatened that she has to face divorce and the respondent would marry another affluent lady.
(vi) In that connection, she came to know that her husband had already got affair with a Lecturer in A.M.G. College, Chilakaluripet. On 04.06.2008, on the grouse that she would 5 not comply with their illegal demands, she was necked out of matrimonial house without justifiable cause. Due to this, she called upon her parents over phone and they came and pleaded with her in-laws. They bluntly demanded that the petitioner would not be allowed to have conjugal life with husband unless their demands were complied. When the petitioner contacted the respondent over phone about this attitude of his father, he carelessly replied "let us discontinue our relationship" and later started avoiding her phone calls. In order to save her marital life, she had gone to Hyderabad on 01.07.2008 and pleaded with him to set up separate family as agreed upon by them at the time of marriage talks, but he did not accept.
(vii) In order to save their face from their guilty nature, her father-in-law made propaganda that she had blamed husband as impotent. As there was no other go, she had issued legal notice, dated 03.01.2009 for restitution of conjugal rights. Having received the notice, the respondent along with his parents and relations came to Guntur on 08.02.2009 and 22.02.2009, but insisted upon complying their illegal demands. The parents of the petitioner were helpless and therefore, she was constrained to stay with her parents.
6
(viii) Due to these disturbances, she is unable to concentrate on any work, but constrained to depend upon her parents for sustenance. The respondent is having sufficient movable and immovable properties in and around Ramakrishnapur and continuing Post Graduation at Indian Institute of Commercial Technology, Hyderabad. He gets handsome salary from the Institute. He neglected to maintain the petitioner and she is unable to maintain herself. Hence the petition.
4) The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition and alleging as follows:
(i) Their marriage was solemnized at Ramakrishnapur of Adilabad, instead of Guntur at the behest of the petitioner's parents against the will and wish of local Pastor suggested by the respondent's parents. Rev. K. Vedamani, Pastor of Telugu Baptist Church, Guntur is not competent to perform marriages outside Guntur District.
(ii) After marriage, the respondent was brought to Guntur in routine manner and nuptial ceremony was arranged as a matter of custom. While so, the petitioner has refused and showed non-cooperation for consummation of marriage. The 7 respondent has taken the incident in a lighter manner, but the petitioner and her mother have started propaganda among friends and relations at Guntur, that the respondent is impotent.
The petitioner's mother speaks values and insults and humilities the respondent openly the petitioner came to Ramakrishnapur along with the respondent and spent a few days, but she has not cooperated for consummation of marriage. The petitioner's mother has gathered relations and came to Ramakrishnapur and held a Panchayat as if the respondent was unfit for marital life.
(iii) Immediately, after those incidents, the petitioner was brought to Guntur in unethical manner and since then she is staying separately against the wish of the respondent. The respondent and his relations tried their level best to get the petitioner back to Ramakrishnapur, but her parents did not respond properly. On the other hand, the petitioner was sent away to undisclosed place to see that she did not participate in the discussions with elders. Ultimately, the respondent issued legal notice, dated 11.10.2008 to the petitioner, but it could not be served due to refusal of notice by the petitioner's parents. Therefore, he was constrained to file divorce petition in District Court, Adilabad and it is pending. Several times, summons have 8 been issued in that OP, but the petitioner was not served due to fraud played by her parents. Suppressing the material facts, the petitioner filed these cases and also Domestic Violence Act case to harass the respondent. In fact, no dowry was paid to them for the marriage. Moreover, the petitioner has successfully retained 150 grams of gold ornaments presented to her by his family at the time of marriage.
(iv) He has never refused nor neglected to provide maintenance to the petitioner at any time. He is doing Research work, but not any job. He stays elsewhere, but not with parents. The petitioner is leading comfortable life by deserting the husband. By making false propaganda that he is impotent, the petitioner has illegally and willfully withdrawn from conjugal society and is living separately without giving even her husband to the respondent. The petitioner's parents have performed the marriage with their small contribution of money for expenses. For the Post Graduation, the petitioner has availed education loan and the bank authorities have filed suit against her for recovery of the loan installments. Therefore, they have no capacity to pay the dowry amount. The respondent does not 9 have any movable or immovable properties. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5) During the course of enquiry before the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, petitioner examined as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2, who is the Pastor and P.W.3, who is the Church elder. She got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and X.1. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and did not examine any other witnesses. The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, by virtue of a common order in M.C.No.54 of 2009 and D.O.P.No.118 of 2009, directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,600/- to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every month with effect from 10.09.2010. It is also a different aspect that the learned Judge also allowed D.O.P.No.118 of 2009, directing to restore matrimonial life. Insofar as the present Criminal Revision Case is concerned, the order relating to M.C.No.54 of 2009 is under challenge.
6) Now, in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the petitioner in M.C.No.54 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, was able to establish that the respondent neglected to maintain her and that 10 she had no means to maintain herself and that the respondent had sufficient means to maintain her? (2) Whether the impugned order suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety?
Points 1 and 2:
7) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner represented that the Revision Case may be disposed on merits treating his arguments as heard.
8) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor informed that the second respondent is a formal party.
9) Sri Teja Sai, learned counsel, representing Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the first respondent, sought to support of the judgment of the Court below on the ground that the learned Judge on overall appreciation of the evidence on record and by recording consent reasons, granted maintenance and that the same is not liable to be interfered with.
10) P.W.1 before the trial Court is no other than the petitioner and she filed chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of her petition before the trial Court. The chief 11 examination affidavits of P.Ws.2 and 3 are filed to support the cause of the petitioner. Petitioner got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 before the trial Court. There was evidence of R.W.1 reiterating the contents of the counter.
11) As seen from Ex.A.1, it is the letter evidencing the exchange of lanchanams, dowry and valuables for the purpose of marriage. It was prior to the marriage i.e., on 18.02.2008 signed by father of the petitioner and father-in-law apart from caste elders. Ex.A.2 is the marriage certificate. Ex.A.3 is the endorsement of father-in-law of the petitioner, dated 06.03.2008, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,016/- from the father of the petitioner. Ex.A.4 is office copy of legal notice, dated 03.01.2009, issued by her to the respondent. Ex.A.5 is copy of certificate of posting. Exs.A6 and A.7 are the registered postal receipts. Exs.A.8 and A.9 are the photographs showing the payment of dowry.
12) During the course of cross examination certain answers are given by P.W.1, which further shows the so-called incriminating conduct attributed by the petitioner against the respondent and his family members. She deposed in cross examination that one day prior to marriage engagement, her 12 father-in-law telephoned and demanded her father to pay 50% of the dowry at the time of marriage engagement. It was not initially accepted by other side and therefore, her father wanted some time to arrange money. Her father-in-law demanded to execute a promissory note at the time of marriage engagement and elders advised him to have faith in such matters, as such, Ex.A.1 was executed by both sides. So, P.W.1 explained the circumstances, in which Ex.A.1 was brought into existence being signed by her father and father-in-law. To this, nothing is suggested with any contraversion by the respondent. So, the incriminating things that are elicited at the time of cross examination of P.W.1 remained uncontraverted. Apart from this, Ex.A.3 is also the endorsement attributed against her father-in-law acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,016/- from her father. Even this is not contraverted at the time of cross examination. Exs.A.1 and A.3 are well before the marriage.
13) There is evidence of P.W.2, the Pastor to that the effect that the petitioner and her parents are their Church Members and father of the respondent approached him for a prospective girl to perform the marriage of the respondent, as such, he suggested that petitioner is a suitable girl. 13 Negotiations took place and on 18.02.2008 engagement function took place. The agreement was reduced into writing. It was signed by both parties. Even he was present at the time of payment of Rs.2,00,016/- by the petitioner's father to the father of the respondent. During the course of cross examination the above evidence of P.W.2 on crucial aspects with regard to the agreement in writing and the subsequent payment of cash by father of the petitioner to the father of the respondent are not challenged. There is also evidence of P.W.3, which is similar as that of the evidence of P.W.2. Apart from that, P.W.3 claimed to be Church elder, who witnessed the marriage between the petitioner and respondent. Even regarding the crucial aspects spoken by P.W.3 as regards the earlier agreement prior to the marriage and the payment of cash of Rs.2,00,016/- by the father of the petitioner to the father of the respondent, there was no challenge. So, it is a case that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is fully corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 on material aspects. When P.W.1 explained the circumstances, in which Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.3 came to be executed attributing some sort of adamant behavior against the father of the respondent in insisting to execute a promissory note, etc., relating to the 14 dowry, no contraversion was suggested during the cross examination. It is never the case of the respondent that those documents were not executed by his father. So, the case of the petitioner has support from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 on material aspects. R.W.1 in his chief examination affidavit never tried to explain the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.3. His defence is that unnecessarily petitioner branded him as impotent person and there was no fault on his part for obvious reasons. The respondent did not choose to examine his father in support of his allegations against the petitioner. When the evidence of P.W.1 has corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and further Exs.A.1 and A.3, the evidence of R.W.1 is nothing but self-serving, which cannot stands to the test of scrutiny.
15) The main contention of the petitioner is that from the very beginning her father-in-law was so adamant and even he beat the relatives of the petitioner as well as the petitioner on the ground that she did not bring additional items, as such, she was necked out. The petitioner was able to establish the conduct of the father of the respondent by getting marked Exs.A.1 and A.3 and she explained the circumstances that too in cross examination about the manner in which Exs.A.1 and A.3 15 came to be executed and her evidence in this regard was not at all challenged during the cross examination. So, her contention further that as her father did not meet further illegal demands of the respondent's father, she was necked out from the house, appears to be convincing.
16) Apart from this, when the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent, respondent did not choose to give any reply. The contention of the respondent that petitioner branded him as impotent cannot stands to any reason, as it is elicited from the evidence that the respondent by working elsewhere used to come to the house of his parents where the petitioner was there in the weekends. If the petitioner raised any allegations of the impotency, etc., against the respondent, he would not have visited the weekends to the place where the petitioner was staying i.e., in his parents house.
17) In the counter, the respondent denied routinely the allegations of demand relating to dowry, etc., but the petitioner was able to prove place consistent evidence by examining P.Ws.2 and 3 in support of her allegations and to speak about the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.3. The respondent did not venture to dispute all these facts. So, his counter denying the 16 allegations of dowry, etc., are nothing but incorrect. The evidence on record goes to reveal that P.W.1 stayed in her in- laws house for a period of 3 to 4 months at Ramakrishnapur and by then respondent used to visit her at the weekends. All these goes to show that the contention of the respondent that petitioner humiliated him by attributing that he is impotent cannot stands to any reason.
18) The facts and circumstances are such that the father of respondent was dominant on the respondent, for which the respondent did not open up his mouth against his father. That appears to be root cause for the estrangement between the parties. In my considered view, the evidence on record quietly proves that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner and the petitioner was unable to maintain herself. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was of such a person, who could maintain herself. No such plea was there in the counter.
19) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was able to prove before the Court below that the respondent neglected to maintain her, who had no means to maintain herself.
17
20) Coming to the means of the respondent to maintain the petitioner even according to him, he is getting stipend of Rs.8,000/- per month and HRA of Rs.2,000/- per month as Research Fellow in Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Tarnaka. He admitted that if he continues for five years, he would get Rs.15,000/- per month. The neglect was made by the respondent to maintain the petitioner, who had no sufficient means. On the other hand, the parents of the petitioner presented cash and certain items under Exs.A.1 and A.3, which is not in dispute.
21) Under the circumstances, the respondent, who is ably bodied and who is having source of income of Rs.10,000/- per month even as on the date of the petition is bound to maintain the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur elaborately appreciated the evidence on record and a perusal of the order in M.C.No.54 of 2009 goes to reveal that the reasons furnished by the leaned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, are quietly sound and probable and the maintenance that was awarded in favour of the petitioner at Rs.3,600/- per month is just and reasonable and it is not at all excessive. 18
22) In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, the Criminal Revision Case must fail.
23) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 30.11.2022.
PGR 19 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2216 OF 2010 Date: 30.11.2022 PGR