Telangana High Court
Chelluboina Veeram Shetty, Hyd vs Smt. C. Parvathi, Hyd And 2 Ots on 3 July, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.283 of 2013
JUDGMENT :
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice SambasivaRao Naidu) This Family Court Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful husband against his wife and two others under Section 19 of Family Court Act (for short 'the Act') with a prayer to set aside the order dated 30-09-2010 in OP.No.535 of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. As could be seen from the grounds of appeal as well as the order, it appears that this is a second round of litigation against the same cause of action. The appellant herein is husband and 1st respondent is his wife. Their marriage was performed on 08-05-1977 at Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Chinna Thirupathi, West Godavari District. It further appears that during 1996, the appellant herein filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent and two others vide OP.No.124 of 1996 and sought for divorce. As per the material averments 2 PSK,J & SSRN, J FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013 made in the said petition, it was his claim that soon after the marriage, both parties lived together as wife and husband and at the time of marriage, he was working at Hyderabad. They resided at Vengalarao Nagar and Vanasthalipuram. Later, he has constructed a house at Srikrishna Devaraya Nagar and shifted to his new house. They were blessed with two children. Later, the 1st respondent started chit fund business and the appellant herein has claimed that the respondent, who used to dominate him, started quarreling with him unnecessarily, and having left his house, she stayed at Bheemavaram for 3 or 4 months. The appellant having claimed that the respondent used to quarrel with him and with his mother, neglected the family life and on other grounds, he sought for divorce. However, the respondent opposed the petition. She filed a counter disputing the material allegations of the petition and the matter was enquired by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The said petition vide OP.No.124 of 1996 was disposed by the trial Court on 02-08-2000 and the petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed appeal vide CMA.No.2735 of 2000. At the 3 PSK,J & SSRN, J FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013 time of hearing in the said appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has informed the High Court that criminal cases filed by the respondent vide CC.No.752 of 2005 were disposed by acquitting him vide judgment dated 03-03-2006. Therefore, on that ground, the appellant's request for divorce can be considered. In view of this specific contention, this Court disposed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with the following specific order.
"Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the material on record, and especially, in view of the reasons given by the Court below in the order, the Court below has no opportunity of considering the aforesaid material and also as to the effect of proceedings of Section 498-A of IPC. Now that the proceedings under Section 498-A are already over and the other material has to be considered. Hence, the matter requires to be re-considered.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order dated 02-08-2000 in OP.No.124 of 1996 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is set aside and the said OP is remitted back to the Court below to dispose of the same afresh on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs."
4. In view of the above said order, the petition filed by the appellant has been again enquired and the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy, disposed the petition under the impugned order and again dismissed the petition holding that 4 PSK,J & SSRN, J FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013 the appellant herein is not able to prove the grounds viz., adultery and cruelty.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the Family Court did not appreciate the additional evidence produced by him which includes the judgment in CC.No.752 of 2005 which was filed under Section 498-A of IPC and judgment in CC.No.751 of 2005 dated 13-03-2006 filed for the offences under Sections 323, 506, 504 and 342 of IPC. The appellant has claimed both the above referred criminal cases were ended in acquittal, thereby, it is quite clear that the respondent herein foisted false cases against him. But the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence produced by him through five (5) independent witnesses. The Family Court failed to appreciate the documentary proof filed by the appellant herein and failed to appreciate the appellant having exhausted his patience and vexed with the attitude, came before the Court with a prayer for divorce but the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, thereby, sought for setting aside the judgment and prayed for divorce.
5 PSK,J & SSRN, J FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013
6. As already stated, the petition filed by the petitioner vide OP.No.124 of 1996 was filed on the ground of cruelty and all his contentions which were opposed to by the respondent were properly answered by the trial Court and his appeal vide CMA.No.2735 of 2000 was disposed only for limited purpose of considering the grounds raised by him with regard to his acquittal in criminal cases.
7. In fact, the record placed before the Court clearly indicates that those criminal cases were filed by the respondent subsequent to his filing the divorce petition, thereby, the same cannot be considered for granting divorce to the appellant herein. In fact, when the matter was remanded to the Court below, the learned Judge, Family Court appreciated all the contentions raised by the appellant herein and came to a correct conclusion that the appellant herein could not make out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery.
8. In fact, the appellant while filing the original petition specifically claimed that the respondent used to dominate and did not care the family life and sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The subsequent initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC or other 6 PSK,J & SSRN, J FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013 penal provisions in view of the subsequent events that taken place between the couple cannot be considered for deciding the contentions raised by the appellant nor they can be accepted as grounds of cruelty. Therefore, absolutely, there are no grounds for granting divorce to the appellant or to interfere with the findings recorded by the Family Court in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY __________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU Date: 03.07.2024 PLV