MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Divorce on a drift of cruelty as good as stupidity underneath Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii)

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

CASE NO.Appeal Against Order No. 3073 of 1998

Bench: JUSTICE Dr. Motilal B. Naik A. Gopal Reddy

D. MANGA @ MANGAMMA
Vs.
D. VENKATA RAMANA On 9 Sep 1999

JUDGEMENT

Exposure of so many loathing and passion aplenty in this box that culminated in a rocking of a matrimonial home of a Judicial Officer.

2. Appellant is a mom whose matrimony with a respondent, a newly recruited Judicial Officer of a arrange of District Munsif, took place on 18.5.1994. The respondent took assign as District Munsif, Amalapuram, that is his initial posting, on 4.5.1994

3. The respondent filed O.P. No. 108 of 1997 on a record of a Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry (Old O.P. No. 42 of 1996 on a record of Sub-Court, Amalapuram) seeking retraction of his matrimony with a appellant underneath Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of a Hindu matrimony Act, 1955. Serious allegations and opposite allegations have been intended opposite any other by a respondent-husband and appellant-wife. However, we do not introduce to snippet those large alleganons in this judgment. We might usually state few applicable contribution for a purpose of ordering of this appeal.

4. For a purpose of convenience, a parties are addressed as petitioner-husband and respondent-wife as per their array in O.P. No. 108 of 1997 on a record of a Court below.

5. The matrimony of a postulant with a respondent was solemnised on 18.5.1994 during Kinnera Kalyana Mandapam, Srikakulam as per a etiquette to that a parties belong. The matrimony was done shortly after. Just dual weeks before to a marriage, a postulant was allocated as a District Munsif during Amalapuram and assimilated bureau on 4.5.1994. The postulant put adult his family during Amalapuram on 23.5.1994 along with a respondent. As a postulant was to bear training during Hyderabad, he took a respondent also along with him and they both lived in Hyderabad city compartment a execution of his training, upto 12.10.1994. After execution of training, a postulant was posted in a aged hire i.e., Amalapuram and he assimilated as II Additional District Munsif in a month of October, 1994. The postulant put adult his family with a respondent during Amalapuram and led conjugal life.

6. Petitioner purported that as a family of a respondent is financially abundant and as one of her brothers viz., Sri Suryanarayana was operative as a Divisional, Forest Officer, a respondent had grown to lead as abundant impression of living. However, postulant being a Judicial Officer in a reduce stage of a judiciary, with his salary, has to contend his kin and other family members. Though a postulant and respondent lived happily during Hyderabad during a training duration of a petitioner, yet after returning to Amalapuram, according to a petitioner, troubles started afterwards onwards. As per a recommendation of a family members of a respondent in particular, a father and hermit of a respondent, a respondent started badgering a postulant requiring him to demeanour to new avenues that fetch him additional revenue. But a postulant withstood a vigour exerted by a respondent. Petitioner serve purported that a enticement and fervour for income are so many in a respondent that she became unfortunate and started pestering a postulant to gain resources by any means regulating his central capacity.

7. Petitioner claimed that a respondent not usually started badgering a postulant yet done his life miserable and used-to collect adult visit quarrels and was formulating nuisance. He serve purported that a respondent used to protest to other Judicial Officers on groundless drift and during times she used to abuse a postulant in. coarse denunciation even in a participation of staff members operative in their house. The respondent, according to a petitioner, used to leave a residence yet even informing him, go to her kin residence and from there, she used to give a telephonic summary requiring a postulant to make amendments. Even a hermit of a respondent Mr. Suryanarayana used to bluster a postulant on write that if he unsuccessful to act on his advice, his career will be ruined. Petitioner claimed that a threats, conuct and poise of a mom became so terrible that it became non-professional for him to endure and combine on his legal work.

8. The visit quarrels and withdrawal a residence by a respondent undone a postulant on comment of that he was incompetent to combine on his legal functioning. He done efforts by a elders and mediators in sequence to move about a change in a opinion of a respondent. Though a respondent confident her mistake and pleaded excuse, however, she again after a week or 10 days used to collect adult quarrels with a petitioner. The postulant purported that a respondent left his residence yet informing him and afterward on 23.3.1995 wrote a minute seeking condonation of her lepses. At times, a respondent used to bluster to dedicate self-murder as a postulant was not seeing to her advice. She had even threatened to proceed a military to record cases opposite a postulant for dowry harassment. As a outcome of these activities, a postulant had suffered a good understanding of mental anguish and all these acts of a respondent amounted to mental cruelty.

9. Petitioner settled that not usually he was subjected to mental cruelty yet also to earthy cruelty. He settled that a respondent indulged in unfinished poise and done an try on his life with a assistance of a domicile blade and attempted to gash him. Petitioner has also settled that she threw chappals during him in a participation of his staff members as he could not infer her lust for money.

10. Petitioner purported that a loathing of a respondent opposite him reached such heights that she lodged censure in a military hire with a active support of her kin and hermit and a box in Crime No. 25 of 1995 was purebred underneath Section 498-A of I.P.C. in Ponduru Police Station. Apart from military complaint, postulant purported that a respondent has also got released derogative press statements opposite him in Telugu dailies depicting him as “Nararoopa Rakshasudu”. The respondent done attempts to etch a postulant as a knave and non-professional to be a Judicial Officer and attempted to taint his picture during all places wherever he worked. Petitioner claimed that a respondent even complained to a High Court opposite him to take movement opposite him and also filed a command petition in a High Court to place him underneath suspension. The respondent henceforth stayed in her kin residence withdrawal a multitude of a postulant from 3.5.1995 and afterward she done all sorts of furious allegations opposite a postulant in a press, in a Bar Associations wherever a postulant worked. On comment of these acts of a respondent, postulant realised that there is no attract left in his matrimonial life with a respondent and as such filed a O.P. seeking a approach of divorce.

See also  When Woman is not entitled to get residence order in Domestic Violence Act?

11. The respondent-wife filed a counter, using into several pages, denying a allegations done by a petitioner-husband. She purported that a postulant demanded some-more income from her kin and some amounts were given to him. However, he grew tightwad and tightwad and in his craving to remove some-more money, started badgering a respondent to get some-more money. Respondent purported that a postulant went to a border of murdering her with a blade and also threatened to set her fervent by pouring kerosene if his approach for some-more income is not met. The respondent claimed that in sequence to cover adult his misdeeds, a postulant combined a stage to uncover that a respondent is a fractious lady. She serve settled that a postulant demanded dual acres of land from out of 10 acres of land that belonged to somebody else. The respondent settled that a postulant even lodged a censure opposite her hermit and got a crime purebred underneath Section 307 of I.P.C. as if his hermit attempted to kill him. She serve claimed that a postulant used his central position and tormented not usually a respondent yet also her kin and other family members. It is in this background, respondent claimed, that she approached a military hire and lodged a censure opposite a postulant underneath Section 498-A of I.P.C. She serve claimed that during a duration of 9 months stay during Amalapuram, a mom of a postulant threatened to kill a respondent with a blade while perfectionist several domicile articles including VCR etc., from her. Petitioner also demanded a whole bullion and Kisan Vikas Patras value abouty Rs. 80,000/- be given to him. The respondent finally pleaded that outrageous amounts are paid to a postulant in income and kind value about Rs. 5 lakhs and nonetheless he is not confident and it is he who is obliged for this state of affairs. Petitioner, according to a respondent, has no reason for violence and torturing her. The respondent eventually prayed for exclusion of a petition filed by a petitioner.

12. To justify their sold averments, a postulant examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined P.Ws. 2 to 10 and got noted Exs. A1 to A-35; a respondent got herself examined as R. W. 1 and also examined R.Ws. 2 to 6. Exs. B-1 to B-12 were got noted on her behalf.

13. The Court below, on a basement of verbal and documentary justification adduced by both a parties, came to a end that a control of a respondent-wife was such that she done a life of a postulant miserable. The justification adduced by a postulant reflected a control and a acts of a respondent and her kin who got fake and derogative statements published opposite a postulant in newspapers, amounted to a acts of cruelty. The Court next serve came to a end that there is no odds of a postulant and respondent settling down in marital life. By holding so, a Court next authorised O.P. No. 108 of 1997 filed by a petitioner, on 26.10.1998 extenuation a approach of divorce, opposite that a benefaction seductiveness is filed by a wife.

14. At a outset, it is settled by Smt. D.S.R. Krishna, Counsel for a appellant-wife who is a respondent in O.P. No. 108 of 1997 that a postulant being a Judicial Officer, has used his central ability and shabby several authorities including a witnesses and as such an volume of legal influence opposite a respondent-wife is seen from a impugned sequence of a Court below. Counsel submitted that a appellant-wife is an trusting lady of proposal age whose matrimony with a postulant was achieved in a year 1994. Counsel contended, a control of a postulant who is a Judicial Officer, was such that it became rarely non-professional for a mom to endure his fervour for money. Counsel serve contended that a postulant alone is obliged for this state of affairs as he tortured a respondent that has resulted in a respondent withdrawal a multitude of a postulant incompetent to bear a harassment.

15. Learned Counsel also settled before us that a Court next has not appreciated a justification in a right viewpoint and has erroneously reason that a postulant suffered cruelty during a hands of a respondent and, therefore, pleaded that a impugned sequence and approach of a Court next are probable to be set aside. Learned Counsel nextly pleaded that a respondent-wife is prepared and peaceful to join a multitude of a petitioner-husband even during this indicate of time and a mom could be available to join a multitude of a father for heading a marital life.

16. Learned Counsel for a petitioner-husband Mr. S.R. Sanku, on a discordant settled before us that a saturated record placed before a Court by a petitioner-husband simulate a control of a mom who acted rigourously yet now she is sought to be projected as a really frank and obliged wife. Learned Counsel has taken us by a whole justification of P.Ws. 1 to 10 and also Exs. A-1 to A-35 by that a Counsel sought to remonstrate us that a respondent has done a life of a postulant miserable and has decorated him as a villain. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that a Court next has taken into care all aspects of a matter and has righteously came to a end that a respondent has acted in a vicious demeanour with a postulant and postulated a approach of divorce. Counsel pleaded that a well-considered visualisation of a Court next requires no interference.

17. As celebrated by us in a opening divide itself, so many loathing and passion is seen in a averments, justification and by other material, however, we do not consider it suitable to snippet a same in this judgment. We usually dwell on a critical aspect as to possibly there is an component of cruelty in a control of a respondent-wife that entitles a petitioner-husband to find a approach of divorce.

See also  How to prove that tenant has sub-letted tenanted premises?

18. At a cost of repetition, we might contend that “A House is Built with Bricks and Stones But a Matrimonial Home is Built with Love and Affection”. In this case, a mud-slinging activity indulged in by both a parties has reached to such a indicate that a repairs caused to their marital life is over repair.

19. The justification of a petitioner-husband as P.W. 1 and also P.W. 2 who is also a Judicial Officer does give an denote that a respondent-wife was in a robe of formulating problems and was badgering a petitioner. The justification of P.W. 5 who is a Court staff operative with a postulant during a applicable indicate of time also throws light on a fact that a respondent was ill-treating a petitioner. P.W. 10 a landlady in whose residence a postulant was residing, has deposed that she had beheld a postulant and a respondent frequently indulging in quarrels and violence any other. The postulant in his justification as P.W. 1 has deposed that on 4.5.1995 in a early hours a respondent came out of his residence and kick him with a chappal by abusing in dirty denunciation and that he pushed a respondent on comment of that she fell on a flower plant and perceived a tiny injury. The postulant has also deposed that on 2.5.1995 a respondent postulated tiny repairs on her palm when she attempted to conflict him with kitchen knife.

20. As is transparent from a anticipating of a Court below, a postulant had sent a respondent to her kin residence on 4.5.1995 alongwith a residence owner, (husband of P.W. 10) and Court Attender (P.W. 5). From afterwards onwards, both a postulant and a respondent have been staying separately. It is also transparent that on a basement of a complaints sent by a respondent opposite a petitioner-husband to a High Court, a High Court destined a Principal District Judge, East Godavari during Rajahmundry to reason an enquiry and contention his report. The Principal District Judge accordingly reason an enquiry and sent a news to a High Court watching that a allegations leveled by a respondent opposite a postulant are ill-founded inasmuch as a respondent herself was causing difficulty and badgering a petitioner. It is a specific box of a postulant that a respondent not usually was formulating problems in a residence yet also creation it non-professional for him to combine on legal work and evenly carrying out antagonistic promotion opposite him by a press by creation derogative press statements depicting him as a villain. This claim of a postulant is abundantly valid by Exs. A23 to A26 that are noted on seductiveness of a petitioner. A reading of Exs. A-23 to A-26, journal reports in Telugu dailies, it is transparent that a respondent-wife has done those statements raised a postulant as a male inspired for dowry and in that instruction he tormented her and even went to a border of murdering her. The statements done by her, that seemed in newspapers, positively have tarnished a picture of a postulant as a Judicial Officer and also uncover him in bad esteem. Though a respondent pleaded that she is not obliged for those news equipment Exs. A-23 to A-26, a postulant examined P.Ws. 6 to 9 who are news reporters of a sold newspapers, who certified that those news equipment were published during a insistence of a respondent and her relatives. This fact abundantly proves that a respondent was focussed on formulating all sorts of problems to a postulant creation his life miserable.

21. Adding insult to injury, one some-more aspect that has been found by us in a opposite filed by a respondent, she has definitely mentioned that a postulant had grown unlawful cognisance with a lady Attender namely Chinnamma. When such a critical claim is made, a respondent had to infer a same. Incidentally, yet a respondent mentioned this aspect in her counter, conjunction she spoke about a same in her justification nor any witnesses examined on her seductiveness pronounced anything on this aspect. Therefore, this allegation, in a view, is a many ungrounded claim done opposite a postulant by a respondent that is not found to be true.

22. Courts have reason that cruelty could possibly be earthy or mental. Petitioner is a Judicial Officer and he is approaching to lead a trained life. He has been pleading that his mom with a connivance of her family members, in particular, with a assist of her hermit who is an successful Forest Officer, has been insisting him to urge his financial position by any means, that is not to a fondness of a petitioner. This is a base means of a difficulty between a parties. The hermit of a respondent played an active purpose in this courtesy as is found by a justification and he attempted to use all methods to make a postulant tumble in his line of meditative to make bootleg money. Towards that direction, he annoyed his sister (respondent) opposite her father as a result, a complacency in a married life of a postulant and a respondent is short-lived.

23. Even yet courtesy to a other allegations done by a postulant to infer that his respondent-wife is vicious towards him, a statements Exs. A-23 to A-26 seemed in newspapers depicting a postulant as a villain, that were released during a insistence of a respondent and her kin as oral to by P.Ws. 6 to 9, are sufficient to contend that this act of a respondent that has got a intensity of deleterious a repute and venerate of a petitioner, is really vicious than any other act. After all, a postulant is operative as a Judicial Officer whose avocation is to endorse a cases impartially. If a respondent who is a mom of a postulant indulges in impression assassination depicting him to be a chairman of prejudiced and greedy, people might remove faith in him and glance during him with guess that eventually tend to reduce a status of a whole system.

See also  If Notice returned with endorsement "refused" or "not available" presumed as served?

24. Though a respondent-wife in her opposite leveled a critical claim opposite a postulant that he was carrying unlawful cognisance with a lady Attender Chinnamma, conjunction she deposed anything on this aspect nor any of her witnesses spoke about it. Courts have reason that ungrounded allegations when done by a associate opposite a other associate and such allegations are not proved, a other associate opposite whom such allegations are made, is entitled to find divorce on that belligerent alone. As discussed earlier, a respondent-wife has not oral anything about a purported unlawful cognisance of a postulant with one lady Attender Chinnamma, that she purported in a counter. When a respondent-wife unsuccessful to justify a same, this ungrounded claim has a component of impression assassination of a postulant and on his belligerent also, a postulant is entitled to find divorce.

25. We, therefore, contend that a above dual incidents that are brought on record, are sufficient for a postulant to find divorce from a respondent as these acts volume to cruelty. Though a postulant has deposed that his mom threw chappals during him in a participation of Court staff, we do not introduce to advert to this aspect as we find sufficient component facets of cruelty opposite a postulant indulged in by a respondent, entitling him to find a approach of divorce.

26. Though a schooled Counsel for a respondent-wife pleaded before us that a mom is prepared to join a multitude of a petitioner-husband and would lead a marital life with him and prayed to set aside a impugned sequence and approach of a Court below, we do not consider such a ask could be supposed in a box of this inlet where a poise of a respondent-wife is such that it is non-professional for a petitioner-husband to share a marital life with her. Even in her justification as R.W. 1, a respondent has certified that she gave military complaints opposite a petitioner, and sent petitions opposite him to a High Court usually with a perspective to emanate problems to a petitioner. This is a anticipating of fact by a Court next that shows that a respondent-wife is focussed on wreaking reprisal opposite a petitioner. The accumulative outcome of these acts make it transparent that a marital attribute of a parties has irretrievably damaged down and there is no probability to correct a repairs already caused. When a matrimonial home collapses over repair, it can't be rebuilt and a wounds can't be healed distinct other earthy wounds. Therefore, it is formidable for us in this background, to accept a ask done onbehalf of a respondent-wife that a possibility be given to a mom to lead a marital life with a petitioner.

27. Though a postulant has sought divorce on a drift of cruelty as good as stupidity underneath Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a deficiency of correct evidence, a belligerent of stupidity pleaded by a postulant is unsuitable to us. We are, however, confident that a postulant has been abundantly fit in seeking divorce on a belligerent of cruelty.

28. For all a foregoing reasons, we boot this seductiveness and endorse a sequence and approach antiquated 26.10.1998 upheld in O.P. No. 108 of 1997 by a Court below.

29. The appellant-wife has filed a petition underneath Section 25 of a Hindu Marriage Act seeking permanent alimony, in a eventuality her seductiveness C.M.A. No. 3073 of 1998 is dismissed, of Rs. 10,00,000/- detached from lapse of ornaments and bullion trinket presented to her. The father filed a opposite revelation a fact of Rs 50,000/- being kept in corner comment in State Bank of Hyderabad, Amalapuram and out of this volume certain domicile articles were purchased. The father has also certified that an volume of Rs. 48,000/- Was kept in post bureau in a name of a mom and she is removing seductiveness from a same and she is entitled for a pronounced amount. The father serve certified that a Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs. 50,000/- that has now doubled to one lakh rupees and that are kept in locker No. 60 in a name of a respondent in Indian Overseas Bank, Amalapuram, could also be given to her. The postulant has also certified that a Hero Honda engine cycle has been presented to him and he voiced his enterprise to lapse it to a father of a respondent.

30. It is unnecessary to discuss that a father shall lapse a articles that were given to him as gifts by his parents-in-law during a time of a marriage. Likewise, a bullion ornaments perceived by a mom during a time of matrimony from a husband, she shall lapse a same to a husband. The petitioner-husband in his opposite has settled that he is peaceful to lapse a equipment mentioned in mainstay No. 1 in a petition. He has also settled that a respondent is during autocracy to keep a amounts mentioned in mainstay Nos. 2 and 3 of a petition. Since a petitioner-husband has volunteered to lapse a articles that go to a respondent, he shall lapse all a equipment that go to a respondent.

31. The respondent-wife has sought an volume of 10 lakhs rupees towards permanent subsistence from a petitioner. The postulant is a Judicial Officer operative in a reduce stage of a law as a District Munsif carrying been allocated in a year 1994. Taking into care a sum income and carry-home income of a petitioner, his center category credentials and his requirement to contend his kin and other dependents, we approach that an volume of Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousands only) be paid to a respondent-wife towards permanent subsistence by a petitioner-husband. This volume shall be paid to a respondent within a duration of 6 months from to-day, in a form of a Bank Draft performed in a name of a respondent underneath acknowledgement. Till such remuneration is done towards permanent alimony, a petitioner-husband shall compensate an volume of Rs. 1,500/- (fifteen hundred only) per month to a respondent by approach of Money Order before fifth day of each month. No costs.

Appeal dismissed..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  If Notice returned with endorsement "refused" or "not available" presumed as served?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation