Telangana High Court
Mr.Gaddipati Ramakrishna vs Smt.Gaddipati Prashanthi on 7 June, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.186 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt Gaddipati Prashanthi, learned party-in- person/respondent. Perused the record.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.11.2011 in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.
3. Appellant-husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2010 against respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, contending as follows:-
i. Appellant was born in a middle class agricultural family in Gudavalli Village, Guntur District. ii. His father passed away, when he was 11 months old. His mother was very young at that particular point of time. Therefore, she remarried.2
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 iii. Appellant was brought up by his paternal grandparents.
With the dint of sheer hard work, he completed schooling and intermediate and gained admission into Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani in the year 1998. He completed his Masters in Management Studies in the year 2002. Respondent is his classmate in BITS, Pilani. They have interacted with each other. iv. With the consent and approval of their families, they got married on 14.05.2003 as per Hindu customs and rites at TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Tenali, Guntur District. At that particular point of time, he was working as a Software Engineer in Leapstone Systems based at Hyderabad, drawing a salary of Rs.2.5 lakhs per annum approximately.
v. Respondent was unemployed and preparing for MBA admission tests. She secured admission into MBA course in Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune. She completed her MBA in June 2005.
vi. Appellant worked as a Teaching Assistant in BITS, Pilani for some time and thereafter he started his own company 3 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 in the name and style of 'Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited'. He was recognized as one of the successful and inspiring entrepreneur by several organizations and was felicitated at various occasions. He was also named among the top 5 Asia's Best Entrepreneur under the age of 25 by Business Week, Hong Kong.
vii. It is further contended by the appellant that from the date of inception of marriage, respondent did not extend any meaningful cooperation to him and always taunting him about his family, making nasty remarks about his mother remarrying.
viii. According to her, appellant's mother ought not to have remarried.
ix. She used to say that appellant mother was not at all interested in the welfare of her children and was only concerned about herself. These comments hurt the appellant's feelings time and again. x. Respondent used to exhibit temper frequently. On one occasion, during their honeymoon, she broke a camera 4 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 and a cell phone in a fit of rage. He has obtained three bedroom house on rent in SMR Vinay Classic apartment in Madhapur, Hyderabad, in the month of July, 2005 to start his marital life.
xi. Respondent and her mother came for house warming ceremony, picked up ugly fight with the house owner after seeing that the interior work was not complete. Appellant tried to pacify the same.
xii. Respondent's mother shouted at the appellant saying that he does not have any means to support her daughter. She could have got a much better husband for her, who owns a bungalow.
xiii. He will kill her one day either by starving her to death on account of lack of means to support her or burn her by dousing her with kerosene and setting her aflame. xiv. Appellant was making every effort to make the said Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited a success. Respondent was all the time undermining his confidence by making unreasonable demands. On several occasions, in the month of June, 5 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 2005, when the appellant was busy with his work in his office situated at Paradise Circle, MG Road, Secunderabad, respondent came into his chamber with a fistful of pills and threatened that she would swallow them if he does not start immediately with her to see her parents. Shocked by such behaviour of the respondent, appellant had to unwillingly oblige. xv. She was extremely suspicious by nature. xvi. On several occasions respondent's mother made baseless allegations against the appellant the he was returning home late night and he might have spent his time with some other woman.
xvii. Respondent developed acquaintance with one Harshavardhan Reddy, while she was doing her internship at Iridium Interactive Private Limited, Hyderabad as part of undergraduate program curriculum in the year 2002. He was also employed.
xviii. Respondent seems to have maintained contact with him even after marrying the appellant.6
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 xix. After completion of MBA, she took up employment with Indian School of Business, Gachibowli, Hyderabad on 05.04.2005.
xx. After completion of her MBA in Pune, she was employed as an Assistant Manager in Alumni Relations. xxi. She once again revived her acquaintance with the said Harshavardhan Reddy.
xxii. She appeared to have developed a fairly intimate relationship with said Harshavardhan Reddy, and she exchanged SMSs', emails and making frequent telephone calls to him and was travelling with him in his car. xxiii. They were also seen at various public places like restaurants and malls.
xxiv. The said Harshavardhan Reddy was frequently visiting the Indian School of Business even though he has no ostensible reason for doing so, except to meet the respondent.
xxv. The said Harshavardhan Reddy is about 5 years elder to the respondent and he is already married and blessed with a child.
7
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 xxvi. On 21.03.2006, appellant accidentally stumbled upon emails sent by the respondent to Harshavardhan Reddy and mails sent by him to the respondent. Emails are dated between 13.03.2006 and 20.03.2006. A reading of the said emails would clearly disclose that the respondent and said Harshavardhan Reddy were on extremely intimate terms. In email dated 20.03.2006, Harshavardhan Reddy stated that he was waiting for a telephone call from the respondent and that every passing second was like an hour for him. In another email, he also stated that he is dying to talk to the respondent and would be with her throughout her life. Email sent by respondent to Harshavardhan Reddy discloses an excessive amount of familiarity and intimacy with him. In one of the emails, Harshavardhan Reddy gets emboldened enough to tell the respondent that she should "teach" the appellant "a lesson" for interfering with the relationship between him and the respondent. xxvii. On 21.03.2006, appellant requested respondent to explain her relationship vis-a-vis Harshavardhan Reddy. 8
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 However, she was screamed angrily at the appellant. She does not want to live with him anymore and asked him to get out from her life.
xxviii. Appellant also explained the said fact to respondent's father, who called the said Harshavardhan Reddy. xxix. Respondent attempted to commit suicide by swallowing a diamond ring. The said ring came out by next morning, without causing any damage to the respondent. xxx. She and her parents threatened the appellant that they will implicate him in a criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and ensured that he will be behind bars and they will see his son's end. xxxi. Respondent's father arranged a meeting with appellant and respondent on 12.04.2006 at 10:00 AM to sort out the differences. He also called the said Harshavardhan Reddy to the said meeting. Therefore, appellant and respondent were travelling in a car to the respondent's father's residence and as soon as the car reached her father's residence, respondent saw Harshavardhan Reddy car parked in front of the house and she 9 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 panicked, got out of the car, jumped into an auto rickshaw from the nearby auto-rickshaw stand. xxxii. Appellant informed the said facts to respondent's father and followed the said auto in his car.
xxxiii. Respondent reached Hussain Sagar lake and the appellant accosted her. She screamed at the appellant and threatened to jump into Hussain Sagar lake. With great difficulty, appellant was able to dissuade the respondent from committing suicide. Thereafter, he has taken her to restaurant. He called respondent's father to the said restaurant.
xxxiv. After much persuasion, respondent calmed down and her father took her to his house.
xxxv. Respondent's actions have left a scar on the appellant's psyche and he was completely broken hearted. xxxvi. Respondent promised the appellant that she would sever her relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy. On promise and assurance given by her, appellant resumed the matrimonial life with respondent around July, 2006 at 404, Ashraya Apartments, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 10
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 xxxvii. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent. xxxviii. Owing to the type of emotional blackmail, appellant resigned to the said M/s Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited on 05.04.2007. He got offers in many companies in Mumbai as well as USA. Though appellant joined as Manager in Mogran Stanley Advantage Services Private Limited, Mumbai, respondent continued her job at Indian School of Business, Hyderabad.
xxxix. Appellant got offers in USA. Therefore, he resigned his job in Mogran Stanley, Mumbai on 30.07.2008 and respondent agreed to join him in USA. For the reasons best known to her, after appellant returned to Hyderabad. She changed her mind and declined to go to USA along with the appellant. She also threatened him that he would not be able to see his child if he takes up a job in USA. Owing to the respondent's intense pressure, appellant dropped the idea of moving to USA. xl. Respondent hindered the appellant in pursuing investment opportunities of his choice and was very 11 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 vehement in insisting that any investment should be as per her will and all investments should carry her name as well, compromising his financial security. xli. When appellant wanted to buy an apartment in Ramky Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, he requested respondent to help him in timely filling-up of the application form and pay a lakh rupee as sent as an advance. She did not cooperate with him. Thus, respondent traumatized the appellant day and night to invest in the proposed construction. She wouldn't let him sleep. She would cry and shout during nights insisting to invest in the project.
xlii. Thus, right from the date of wedding, her conduct was unreasonable manner inflicting untold mental agony and misery on the appellant. The same constitute cruelty. xliii. After several attempts made by him for reconciliation with the involvement of elders, the said efforts went in vain.
xliv. He urged her to understand the problems and explained her.
12
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 xlv. There was no change in her attitude. Vide emails dated 26.04.2006, 04.05.2009 and 16.04.2010, he requested her to cooperate. There was no change.
xlvi. On the insistence of the respondent, he agreed to see a marriage counselor, namely Mrs.Surekha Guptan. Several counseling sessions were held at Hyderabad in the months of April and May, 2010. There is no solution. xlvii. E-mails dated 30.03.2010, 13.04.2010 and 17.04.2010 revealed the attitude of the respondent and she confessed attempting to commit suicide in the past. In email dated 30.03.2010, She admitted that she cannot tolerate the appellant's grandmother and cannot stand anything proposed by her. Thus, according to the appellant, respondent subjected him to cruelty and he has narrated the said cruelty, which reads as follows:
1. Abusing the appellant, making disrespectful and disparaging remarks against his mother and grandparents in filthy language.
2. Threatening to commit suicide on several occasions and on one occasion attempting to commit suicide by swallowing a diamond ring.13
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
3. Entering into a questionable relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy, thereby causing immense physiological insecurity in the mind of the appellant and thereby inflicting maximum amount of cruelty on the appellant.
4. Causing social embarrassment to the appellant on account of her reckless and irresponsible association with Harshavardhan Reddy and with her ever suspicious mind set, calling several friends and acquaintance enquiring whereabouts of the appellant.
5. Threatening to foist false criminal cases under Section 498-A of IPC not only against the appellant, but also against his mother, step father, uncle and aunt and thus to put them behind the bars.
6. Deliberately and wantonly hindering the career progression of the appellant by refusing to go to Mumbai, the UK or the USA.
7. Causing financial loss by insisting on the appellant giving-up his position as Managing Director of Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited. The said company has now been taken over for rupees four crores.
8. Insisting on the appellant giving her unlimited access to his bank accounts and needless and unwarranted interference in his interpersonal relations with his relatives.
9. Pressurising the appellant to invest money as per the will of the respondent, even at the cost of compromising financial security of the appellant.
14
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
10. Preventing him from meeting his social obligations by making small donations towards the construction of a temple and/or helping needy relatives.
4. Respondent filed a detailed counter, denying the said allegations, with the following contentions:-
i. She never subjected the appellant to cruelty as alleged by him. In fact, he only harassed her in collusion with his mother, step father and maternal uncle. ii. She has denied her relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy. According to her, the said Harshavardhan Reddy was only her colleague.
iii. Appellant's mother used to visit the appellant atleast once in six months and used to stay at respondent house. Respondent has taken care of her welfare whenever she was in their house. Even then, appellant made all the said allegations only to file the present appeal and to get rid of her.
iv. He is of suspicious nature. v. E-mails filed by him are of only two days i.e., 13.03.2006
and 20.03.2006. The same would not prove the alleged 15 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 illicit relation between respondent and the said Harshavardhan Reddy.
vi. Due to suspicious nature of the appellant, respondent forced to abort her first pregnancy.
vii. She blessed with a male child on 23.05.2007. viii. Panchayat was held on 12.04.2006. ix. Appellant made all false allegations against the respondent. x. She never tried to commit suicide as alleged by the respondent.
xi. In fact, the appellant is maintaining acquaintance with one Ms.Shilpa, since intermediate. In one of the more short trips of less than a week to the United States in November, 2007, appellant met the said Shilpa and had financial transactions with her.
xii. On the other hand, he started blaming the respondent. On the insistence/request made by the appellant, she named her son as G.Neo Venkat, as Venkateshwarlu, is his maternal uncle's name. Therefore, he requested that their son's name should include 'Venkat' name. Therefore, she 16 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 named her son as G.Neo Venkat. The said fact would reveal that she never harassed him as alleged by him. xiii. On the complaint lodged by the respondent, a case in D.V.M.C.No.29 of 2010 was registered against the appellant.
xiv. She never tried to swallow diamond ring and she never tried to commit suicide by jumping into Hussain Sagar lake as alleged by the appellant.
5. To prove the said allegations of cruelty, appellant examined himself as PW-1 and got examined his classmate i.e., Mr.K.Hari Krishnan in BITS, Pilani as PW-2. He has filed Ex.A1 i.e., Wedding card, Ex.A2 i.e., Wedding photo, Ex.A3 i.e., Photo copy of marriage certificate, Ex.A4 i.e., Photo copy of household card, Exs.A5 to A14 i.e., copy of e-mails, Exs.A15 and A16 i.e., c.c. of extract from the minutes of the Board of Directors and Ex.A17 i.e., c.c. of letter to the Project Director, Ranga Reddy District.
6. To disprove the said ground of cruelty, respondent examined herself as RW-1 and filed Exs.B1 and B2 i.e., photos, 17 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 Ex.B3 i.e., cradle ceremony photo, Ex.B4 i.e., letter received from Ramky Towers Limited, Ex.B5 i.e., news published in Economic Times, Ex.B6 i.e., copy of the ticket booking, Ex.B7 i.e., savings bank account, Ex.B8 i.e., wedding card, Ex.B9 i.e., copy of letter received from office of Registrar Companies, Ex.B10 i.e., copy of returns for the years 2005-06, Ex.B11 i.e., letter received in ING life Insurance and Ex.B12 i.e., offer letter.
7. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P. filed by the appellant-husband by holding that the appellant failed to prove the said cruelty by producing legally acceptable evidence. The disputes between the appellant and respondent are petty disputes and it does not amount to cruelty. Challenging the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal.
8. Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that respondent never cooperated with the appellant in leading normal happy marital life and she used to suspect the appellant. She attempted to commit suicide by swallowing diamond ring, trying to jump into Hussain Sagar 18 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 lake. She has incited the appellant and his mother by passing objectionable remarks and she maintained illicit relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy. She was adamant and non-cooperative. She broke camera and cell phone in fit of rage. She picked up quarrel with the house owner at the time of house warming ceremony. She has threatened appellant that she will implicate the appellant in false criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Respondent deliberately and wantonly hindered the career progression of appellant by refusing to join him at Mumbai, UK and USA and caused financial loss to him by insisting him to give up his position as Managing Director of Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited. Respondent insisted the appellant by giving her unlimited access to his bank accounts and needless and unwarranted interference in his interpersonal relations with his relatives. She pressurized the appellant to invest money as per her will, even at the cost of compromising his financial security. Respondent prevented him from meeting his social obligations by making small donations towards the construction of temple and helping needy relatives. 19
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
9. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v.Neelu Kohli 1 , Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 2 , Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur 3 , Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple alias Kajal 4 , Vishwanath Agarwal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agarwal 5 , K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa 6 , Malathi Ravi v. B.V.Ravi 7 , Narendra v.K.Meena 8, Kusum v. Gurcharan Singh 9,Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar 10 , Badat and Company v. East India Trading Company11, Gian Chand and Brothers and another v. Rattan Lal alias Rattan Singh 12 and Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives v. Muddasani Sarojana13.
10. Whereas, learned Party-in-person/respondent contended that appellant failed to prove the aforesaid cruel acts. The 1 2006 (4) SCC 558 2 2007 (4) SCC 511 3 2009(1) SCC 422 4 2011 (12) SCC 1 5 2012 (7) SCC 288 6 2013 (5) SCC 226 7 2014 (7) SCC 640 8 2016 (9) SCC 455 9 2018 SCC Online Del 12576 10 2021 (3) SCC 742 11 AIR 1964 SC 538 12 (2013) 2 Supreme Court 606 13 (2016) 12 SCC 288 20 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 instances referred by him are vague and created only for the purpose of filing the aforesaid O.P. Though the appellant referred so many instances, he failed to examine any witness. Except examining his classmate in BITS, Pilani as PW-2, he has not examined any other witness. Even deposition of PW-2 is not helpful to the appellant to prove the said cruelty.
11. On consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the O.P, filed by the appellant. There is no error in it.
12. As discussed supra, appellant alleged cruelty against the respondent. He has stated about the incident happened in the month of July, 2005 i.e., respondent and her mother picked up an ugly fight with house owner during house warming ceremony at SMR Vinay Classic apartment in Madhapur, Hyderabad. But, he has not produced any evidence. He has not examined the said house owner to prove the said incident. He has admitted the said fact during cross examination.
13. According to the appellant, due to non-cooperative attitude of respondent, he was compelled to resign to the Managing 21 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 Directorship of Bridal Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited. But according to the respondent, the said Company was not doing well and therefore he has resigned to the said Company. Appellant failed to disprove the said fact.
14. In Paragraph No.8 of the petition, appellant has made an allegation with regard to incident of June, 2005 i.e., respondent came to his office chamber in his office situated at Paradise Circle, MG Road, Secunderabad, with fistful of pills, threatened the appellant that she would swallow pills if he doesn't start immediately with her to see her parents. But, he failed to prove the said incident by producing any evidence. He has not examined any witness. He failed to elicit anything from respondent (RW-1) during cross examination. Thus, he failed to prove the said incident.
15. He has also made a serious allegation that respondent developed acquaintance with Harshavardhan Reddy, while she was doing her internship in the year 2002. Even the appellant knows that the said Harshavardhan Reddy as much as respondent knows. The relation was nothing more than just a colleague. Respondent never hid anything. Appellant got access to 22 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 her email account and her password to log in. Emails have been filed before the Court for a period of just two days i.e., dated 13.03.2006 and 20.03.2006. The same does not prove any illicit relation. On one occasion, appellant, respondent along with other friends including Harshavardhan Reddy went on an outing. The said fact would reveal that appellant had made the said allegations with a malafide intention only to file the aforesaid O.P. Despite the said specific contentions of the respondent in Paragraph No.11 of the counter, appellant failed to prove that respondent has maintained close intimacy with the said Harshavardhan Reddy. He has not filed any rejoinder adverting to the same.
16. Appellant also made an allegation that respondent's father arranged a meeting with appellant and respondent on 12.04.2006 and he also called the said Harshavardhan Reddy to his house. Respondent jumped from his car and boarded auto went to Hussain Sagar lake to commit suicide by jumping into the said lake. He has called respondent's father. But he failed to prove the said fact by producing any evidence.
23
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
17. Appellant has also made an allegation that he requested the respondent to explain her illegal relation with Harshavardhan Reddy on 21.03.2006 and that respondent confessed the same. But he failed to prove the same, even during cross examination of RW-1, on examining any witness.
18. Appellant has also made serious allegations that respondent tried to commit suicide, but he has not produced any evidence to the said effect and failed to prove the same during cross examination of RW-1. He also made an allegation that respondent promised and assured him that she will change her attitude and behave properly. Therefore, he has resumed matrimonial life with respondent around July, 2006 at Ashraya Apartments, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. But, he has not elicited anything from respondent during cross examination on the said aspect apart from producing any evidence either oral or documentary. He has also made an allegation that owing to the type of emotional blackmailing, he resigned to M/s Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private limited on 05.04.2007.
24
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
19. As discussed supra, according to the respondent, the said company was not doing well, Therefore, appellant has submitted resignation. But, he has not produced any evidence to prove the same, except saying that respondent did not deny the said fact in the counter. In fact, she has denied the said fact in the counter and she has specifically stated that the said company was not doing well at that particular point of time. Appellant also failed to prove that respondent did not cooperate with him by joining him at USA, UK or Mumbai.
20. As discussed supra, it is the specific case of the respondent that she did MBA course in Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune and she used to work in Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, which is a reputed organization. Thus, she is highly qualified person and interested in working in a reputed organization like Indian School of Business. Infact, he only encouraged her in completing her MBA. Now, he can't blame her. Appellant requested the respondent to come and join him in Mumbai and USA, respondent did not accept for the same. Appellant also failed to produce any evidence and failed to prove that respondent was vehement in insisting him that investment 25 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 should be made as per her will and fancy. He also failed to prove the alleged drama.
21. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court gave a specific finding with regard to the alleged relationship between respondent and said Harshavardhan Reddy. In Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, learned Family Court specifically stated that there is no need of reproducing the evidence oral or documentary. Learned Family Court also gave a specific finding that the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent are not substantiated by any evidence. Learned Family Court also referred the admissions made by the appellant (PW-1) during cross examination with regard to death of his father, brother etc.
22. On consideration of the depositions of PW-1, RW-1 and PW-2 and also emails, in paragraph No.14, learned Family Court gave a finding that the appellant developed inferiority complex against the behaviour of the respondent. Though respondent has grievance against appellant and his family members, she never disputed to give the name of the child as G.Neo Venkat, as the said name is appellant's maternal uncle's name. In such 26 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 circumstances, the allegations leveled by the appellant that respondent abused him and making disrespectful remarks against him and his family members appears to be unbelievable.
23. Learned Family Court also gave a specific finding that appellant failed to prove that respondent attempted to commit suicide by swallowing diamond ring, sleeping pills and jumping into Hussain Sagar lake by producing any evidence. Learned Family Court also referred the depositions of PW-2 in Paragraph No.17, holding that the said evidence is not useful to the appellant to prove that he was subjected to cruelty by the respondent.
24. With regard to the allegation of the appellant that respondent maintained illicit relation with Harshavardhan Reddy, in Panchayat, she expressed her readiness to underwent DNA test for which appellant did not come forward. The said fact would reveal that the allegation made by the appellant that respondent maintained illicit relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy cannot be believed. There is a specific finding in Paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the impugned order on the said aspect. Learned Family Court held that Harshavardhan Reddy is a colleague of 27 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 respondent. She has admitted the said fact in the counter itself and Exs.A5 to A14 i.e., emails. Exchange of the said messages between respondent and Harshavardhan Reddy shall prove the said messages do not reflect any such objectionable intimacy between them.
25. Learned Family Court further held that in these days of globalization everybody who has acquaintance in the computer field and there may be exchange of messages and being a colleague, respondent can send messages and receive messages from Harshavardhan Reddy. Admittedly, the said Harshavardhan Reddy is married and blessed with a boy.
26. The contention of the respondent is that she needs family life and child needs normal life. Learned Family Court also considered the education and avocation of parties that both are engineering graduates at BITS, Pilani, after that she did MBA and he established a company. She is working in Indian School of Business and in view of said temperament of parties, even if the messages are true, learned Family Court is of the considered view that the said messages cannot suggest that she has objectionable intimacy with Harshavardhan Reddy. When appellant started 28 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 suspecting respondent, they felt bad for that, hence that message cannot taken in negative manner.
27. As discussed supra, on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P., filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is a reasoned order and well founded. Appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order.
28. Mr.Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the aforesaid judgments to contend that the acts of the respondent in attempting to commit suicide thrice by swallowing sleeping pills, attempting to jump into Hussain Sagar lake and swallowing diamond ring.
29. As discussed supra, though he made so many allegations against respondent, including committing suicide and maintaining illicit relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy, appellant failed to prove the same by producing any evidence either oral or documentary. He failed to elicit anything during cross examination of RW-1.
29
KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
30. In the light of the same, the aforesaid judgments relied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant are no way helpful to the case of the appellant.
31. In fact, in Samar Ghosh's case (2 supra), in Paragraph No.101, Hon'ble Apex Court gave certain instances of mental cruelty which are illustrative but not exhaustive and the same are extracted below:
"No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused 30 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or 31 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty".
32. In Naveen Kohli's Case (1 Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court referred and considered cruelty including physical or mental cruelty and certain factors to determine the same.
33. In V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat 14 , Hon'ble Apex Court delineated the concept of mental cruelty as conduct that imposes such significant mental anguish and suffering upon one party that cohabitation with the other becomes untenable. This distress must reach a threshold where the parties cannot reasonably be expected to reside together harmoniously. 14
(1994) 1 SCC 377 32 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
34. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. The Court has to consider the evidence on record to come to a conclusion whether the allegations made by the parties amounts to cruelty including mental cruelty. As discussed supra in Samar Ghosh's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred certain instances of mental cruelty which are illustrative, but not exhaustive.
35. In Dastane v. Dastane 15 and Samar Ghosh's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court elucidated that when assessing the issue of cruelty, considerations must be given to the social stature, educational background, and the societal milieu in which the parties operate. The feasibility of the parties reconciling and resuming conjugal life is also a pertinent factor. Importantly, what may constitute cruelty in one instance may not necessarily meet the criteria in another. The determination of cruelty hinges upon the specific facts and circumstances unique to each case.
15
AIR 1975 SC 1534 33 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012
36. In Naveen Kohli's case (1 supra), drawing the warning by Lord Denning in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky16, Apex Court held as below:
"If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find ourselves granting divorce for incomparability of temperament. This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs where the institution of marriage itself is imperiled."
37. The threshold of what constitutes a cruel conduct may differ between a man and a woman. What is cruelty for a women 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.
38. As discussed supra, the appellant though made several serious allegations against the appellant, he failed to prove the same either by producing evidence or during cross examination of RW-1.
39. As discussed supra, on consideration of the said aspects only, learned Family Court gave a specific finding that appellant failed to prove the cruelty by producing legally acceptable evidence.
40. Both the appellant and respondent were blessed with a baby boy by name G.Neo Venkat on 23.05.2007. He is aged 16 (1950) 2 All ER 398 34 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 about 17 years as of now. He is prosecuting studies and he is with respondent. Appellant and respondent are classmates in BITS, Pilani and married after understanding with each other. After some time, they failed to lead their marital life. They started suspecting each other. Appellant alleged that respondent maintained illicit relationship with one Harshavardhan Reddy and whereas respondent alleged that appellant is having intimacy with Ms.Shilpa from his intermediate days. Both of them failed to prove the same by producing some acceptable evidence.
41. It is apt to note that the appellant filed the aforesaid O.P., alleging that the respondent maintained illicit relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy, but he has filed the aforesaid O.P., on the ground of cruelty. It is not on the ground of adultery and that he did not make the said Harshavardhan Reddy as respondent to the said O.P. It is a serious allegation and the appellant has to prove the said allegation by producing legally acceptable evidence. He failed to prove the same. Learned Family Court considered the said aspect and held that the appellant failed to prove the said aspect by producing legally 35 KL,J&PSS,J F.C.A.No.186 of 2012 acceptable evidence. The said finding of the learned Family Court is on sound reasons.
42. Thus, on consideration of the entire evidence, learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P., filed by the appellant. Thus, viewed from any angle, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Family Court Appeal shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J ___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J Date:07.06.2024 VSL