Telangana High Court
Moola Premchand vs Smt. Moola Manasa on 8 July, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
C.M.A. No.517 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.Nagabushanam for the appellant and Sri P. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The appeal arises out of an order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal rejecting the petition filed by the appellant/husband against the respondent/wife under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of divorce, that is, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
3. Counsel appearing for the appellant (petitioner before the Trial Court) submits that the appellant was subjected to cruelty by reason of the allegations made by the respondent against the appellant including aspersions against the appellant's moral character. Counsel submits that the respondent has been living 2 apart from the appellant since 04.11.2013 and has deserted the appellant for the purpose of Section 13 (1)(i-b) of the Act.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondent seeks to support the impugned order by urging that the appellant was unable to make out any ground of cruelty against the respondent and that the respondent intends to reconcile with the appellant and renew their marital ties. Counsel further submits that the respondent has a child and hence the respondent needs security of the appellant's presence. It is also submitted that the appellant is not paying the agreed amount of maintenance to the respondent.
5. The admitted facts are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 29.11.2009 at Narsampet as per their respective caste customs. The appellant later came to Hyderabad for work and the respondent joined him. The respondent used to visit hospitals as well as psychological and mental health set-ups. The respondent gave birth to a daughter on 28.11.2010. A panchayat was held at Kamaram Village on 28.11.2011 between the appellant and the respondent as well as their respective families. Several other panchayats were held for reconciliation of 3 the parties including on 20.09.2013. The respondent made several allegations against the appellant. The respondent fought with the appellant on 04.11.2013 and complained to her parents of assault and abuse committed by the appellant in a drunken state. The Narsampet Police, conducted counselling and advised the respondent to get herself treated for mental illness. The appellant took the respondent to a psychotherapist at a Specialty Hospital, Kothawada, Warangal, but the respondent refused to undergo treatment.
6. The above facts are stated in the impugned order. The impugned order also records the allegations and counter- allegations made by the appellant and the respondent including that the appellant allegedly had friendly relations with the 'house owner' and 'neighbouring ladies'. The appellant also did not visit the respondent and their child who were residing in the house of the respondent's parents at the relevant point of time.
7. The issue before the Court is whether the appellant has been able to make out a case for divorce under the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'.
4
8. Even if we were to ignore the case sought to be made out by the appellant for divorce and the evidence led by him as P.W.1, the affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief of the respondent and the evidence given by her disclose certain significant facts which should be stated in some detail.
9. The respondent states in her affidavit that the appellant disclosed within a few days of her marriage that he has five girl friends and also had frequent late-night conversations with them. The respondent says that the appellant used to neglect the respondent and talk to the house-owner and "neighbouring ladies" for hours and used to insult the respondent in front of them. The accused also bought sarees and innerwear for the neighbouring ladies and did not pay any heed to the respondent's concern in respect of these associations. The respondent also says that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and refused to mend his ways or make any effort for a happy conjugal life with the respondent. The appellant also meted out inhuman treatment on the respondent in an intoxicated state and 5 attacked the respondent with household articles which resulted in the respondent being injured.
10. In the respondent's cross-examination, the respondent denies that she blamed the appellant for having intimate relations with the landlady. The respondent also denies that the appellant beat her up or physically threw her out of her matrimonial home in November, 2013. The respondent also admits that she has been living apart from the appellant since 04.11.2013. The respondent further denies that her father went to the appellant's house on 04.11.2013 along with henchmen or beat the appellant up or took the respondent away from the appellant's house. The respondent admits that she did not consult the doctor due to personal problems and the appellant did not offer to take her for medical treatment after that. The respondent admits that she filed a complaint against the appellant at Athmakur Police Station.
11. The evidence given by the respondent and the statements made by her in the affidavit show that the respondent has cast serious aspersions against the appellant which virtually amounts to character assassination. The cross-examination of the 6 respondent makes it clear that these allegations do not have a basis. The picture would have completely changed had the respondent been able to substantiate the allegations made by her against the petitioner in the affidavit. Significantly, the respondent has also not shown, by evidence, affidavit or otherwise that she intends to resume her conjugal life with the petitioner.
12. The other point raised by the respondent is that the appellant is not providing financial support to the respondent or their child. Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the appellant is presently without a job. Hence, the respondent's stand of the appellant failing to provide any form of financial security to the respondent appears to be without basis. Further, the issue of maintenance is an entirely independent proceeding which the respondent is entitled to pursue before the appropriate forum. We cannot direct the appellant to provide maintenance in the present appeal which arises from the rejection of the appellant's prayer for divorce.
7
13. The word "cruelty" found in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has not received a definition under the Act. The expression "cruelty" has however been considered by the Supreme Court and various High Courts in a long-line of decisions and covers gradations of behaviour which the Courts found to be cruel. Neglect of a spouse, refusing to sever marital ties, filing of false complaints and exposing a spouse to criminal litigation were found to qualify as cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act:
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 1, Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani 2, Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja 3. The Supreme Court also took into account the impact of serious allegations in Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal 4. Repeated filing of cases amounts to mental cruelty and refusing to sever ties where there has been a long period of separation were found to be qualify as cruel conduct: K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa 5.
1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 2 (2020) 18 SCC 247 3 (2017) 14 SCC 194 4 (2022) 15 SCC 742 5 (2013) 5 SCC 226 8
14. "Cruelty" cannot be defined with mathematical precision and must depend on the particular circumstances of the parties i.e., the person who is responsible for the cruel conduct and the person who suffers such conduct. It also depends on the mindsets, socio-economic and educational standing of the persons concerned and their experience and exposure in the relevant context.
15. The concept of "cruelty" within the framework of Section 13(1) of the Act has undergone a transformation as seen from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court under the powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, including in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 6, Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal 7 and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 8, held that the Courts should consider the repercussions and impact of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties and recognize instances of marriages having disintegrated beyond 6 2006 (4) SCC 558 7 (2022) 15 SCC 742 8 Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1118 of 2014 9 repair. The Supreme Court took into account long periods of continuous separation as one of the reasons for holding that the broken matrimonial bond cannot be re-built and any effort made by the Court to reconcile the parties would be futile.
16. Courts must hence recognize in fit cases whether the marriage has disintegrated and cannot be preserved anymore. It would be beyond the scope of judicial enquiry to ignore the obvious fault lines for persons to continue with the marriage.
17. The specific statements given by the respondent/wife and her parents make it clear that the respondent levelled false allegations against the appellant which were serious in nature and were bound to have an impact on the appellant's life and work prospects. The appellant is presently unemployed. Hence, these allegations have the potential to cause further damage to the appellant's overall future prospects. The respondent has not shown any reason for making these complaints/allegations against the appellant and only seeks to resume her marital life for the sake of 'security' which itself is an unsubstantiated and specious argument.
10
18. The respondent also admitted in her cross-examination that she has been living apart from the appellant from 04.11.2013 on a continuous basis. More than 11 years have passed since then. The respondent has not shown any evidence that she attempted to resume her marital life in the last 11 years or filed any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.
19. The above reasons persuade us to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
20. The impugned order dated 30.08.2022 is accordingly set aside. C.M.A.No.517 of 2022 along with all connected Interlocutory Applications is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ______________________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J Date: 08.07.2024 va