Telangana High Court
Kandi Srinivas Goude vs K. Sujatha on 31 January, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.54 of 2012 & 281 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) These appeals are filed by K.Srinivas Goud, husband against the common order dated 08.08.2011 in O.P.No.862 of 2008 and O.P.No.261 of 2009 passed by learned Family Court Jude, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Initially, husband filed O.P.No.862 of 2008 for divorce and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. O.P.No.261 of 2009 was filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed in the same judgment. Aggrieved by the said common order, husband filed the present appeal.
3. He mainly contended that he left the society of the wife first on 27.02.2005 and then on 14.02.2006, but no steps were taken by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights immediately. As on the date of filing the O.P., there was unlawful desertion of his wife for more than four years, but 2 the trial Court instead of dissolving the marriage, allowed for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the trial Court erred in interpreting the word 'cruelty' to mean that reasonable apprehension of the life threat it would be harmful injurious for her to live with the husband. O.P.No.39 of 2005, filed by the husband was not dismissed on merits and was dismissed for default. The trial Court misinterpreted Ex.R2 and the wife filed criminal case with malafide intention and the husband's mother was sent to jail and he lost his job and it amounts to cruelty. After granting restitution of conjugal rights, no efforts were made by his wife to join his company. Therefore, requests this Court to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.
5. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband and respondent/wife for the sake of convenience.
6. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was performed on 21.08.2004 and their marriage got registered on 03.09.2004. The petitioner stated that they married against the wish of the parents and they were residing 3 separately in a rented house. During that time, the respondent never cooperated with the petitioner in routine household works even to cook food to the petitioner and most of the time she used to insist the petitioner for shifting the residence to her parents' house as illetom son-in-law to which the petitioner denied. The respondent frequently used to visit her parents house and used to spend most of the days at her parents' house only. The respondent filed a case in crime No.213 of 2005 against her husband and mother-in- law. The respondent forced the petitioner stating that his mother was very old and suffering with health problems and to send her to old age home and sell the property so that they could go to Australia. The petitioner went to Australia and later he came to know about the birth of a female child through the respondent. The respondent filed a false complaint in Cr.No.840/2005 under Section 498-A, under Section 391) (x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989. He further stated that the parents of the respondent forced him to give undertaking on stamp papers.
7. The petitioner filed a writ petition for quash of Crime No.840 of 2005. The Hon'ble High Court passed stay of 4 orders in FCA M.P.No.137 of 2012 and it caused much mental agony to him. The respondent got issued legal notice for divorce on 02.12.2007 and she did not replied to the notice and the petitioner stated that he and the respondent were living separately since June, 2005; as such he filed O.P.No.862 of 2008 for dissolution of marriage.
8. In the counter filed by the respondent, she denied all the material allegations except marriage and registration of the same. She stated that their marriage was performed on 21.08.20004 at Ramalingeswara Temple, Keesaragutta, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District and it was registered on 03.09.2004.
9. The petitioner in his counter denied all the allegations and he denies that he and his family members never harassed the respondent and never neglected her. He never registered his name with marriage bureau of "Gouda Community for his second marriage with a girl of Goud Community. He left the petitioner's society on 27.02.2005.
10. Petitioner is examined as P.W.1 and filed Exs.P1 to P14. Respondent is examined as R.W.1 and filed Exs.R1 to R10. 5 The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the O.P. filed for divorce by petitioner/husband and allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioner and respondent were living separately from June 2005 and stated that petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion and the trial Court dismissed the O.P.No.39 of 2005 for default filed by the petitioner but the O.P. was not dismissed on merits and the divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He further contended that a criminal case is filed with malafide intention, whereby the petitioner and his mother was sent to jail, as such the mother of the petitioner lost her job.
12. Learned counsel for respondent stated that respondent filed a petition before this Court and later they lived together for certain period and the petitioner left her society on 14.02.2006. The petitioner promised her to take her to Australia but did not comply the same and at the instance of his mother, he was abusing her and also trying to perform another marriage.
6
13. The evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 is oath against oath. There are no other witnesses to substantiate their allegations and counter allegations. The trial Court relied upon Ex.R2, letter written by petitioner and respondent and stated that there is love and affection between the parties and M.C.No. 62 of 2008 filed by the respondent was allowed granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to both respondent and her daughter.
14. Petitioner/husband contended that immediately after the marriage, the respondent was not doing house hold works and also misbehaving with his parents. The respondent did not inform him about the birth of the child, whereas the respondent stated that she went to her parent's house in the month of June, 2005 and gave birth to the child in July, 2005 and gave information about the birth of the child to the petitioner and his mother but neither the petitioner or his mother turned up to see the child. The respondent paid no efforts to join him to till date and filed the present appeal in the year 2013. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent, she did not turn up. Immediately after the marriage, she started abusing him and his mother. Because of the 7 complaint given by the respondent, the petitioner was compelled to leave the education he was pursuing in Australia and returned back to India. Thus, he lost further education and his mother lost her job due to the case filed by her.
15. The threshold of what constitutes a cruel conduct may differ between a man and a woman. What is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, financial position, social status, customs, religious beliefs and value system.
16. The trial Court mainly relied upon Ex.R2 and granted restitution of conjugal rights as claimed by the respondent. Though the petitioner married the respondent against the will of his parents, the respondent did not care about him and he could not pursue the education and he was made to roam around the Courts. Therefore, this Court finds that it amounts to cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband. The marriage of the petitioner and 8 husband performed on 21.08.2004 and registered on 03.09.2004 is to be dissolved by way of decree of divorce.
17. In the result, Family Court Appeals are allowed by setting aside the common order dated 08.08.2011 in O.P.No.862 of 2008 and O.P.No.261 of 2009 passed by learned Family Court Jude, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 31.01.2024 Chs 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.54 of 2012 & 281 of 2013 (per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) DATE:31.01.2024 CHS