Telangana High Court
Dr.Lakshmi Chirumamilla vs Dr.Ravisankar Erukulapati on 7 June, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
F.C.A. Nos.123 and 124 OF 2021
AND
CRL.R.C. Nos.656 OF 2021 and 159 OF 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the appellant/wife in F.C.A.Nos.123 and 124 of 2021 and petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 and respondents in Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021 and Sri Eranki Phanikumar, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband in F.C.A.Nos.123 and 124 of 2021 and Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021.
2. The parties and lis involved in all the aforesaid four matters are one and the same, the aforesaid two appeals and two criminal revision cases were heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
3. F.C.A.No.123 of 2021 is filed by the wife against the common order dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.P.No.546 of 2019 filed by the 2 husband under Section 13 (i) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the act') to grant the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage and F.C.A.No.124 of 2021 is filed by the wife against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.P.No.751 of 2012 filed under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation. The wife along with two children preferred Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in M.C.No.248 of 2012 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C to enhance the monthly maintenance from Rs.50,000/- each to Rs.1,00,000/- each to both the children. Husband preferred Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021 to set aside the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in M.C.No.248 of 2012. Wife also filed O.P.No.759 of 2012 under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act to declare the wife as the permanent guardian of the two children. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Family Court') has passed a common order in the aforesaid four petitions.
4. The learned Family Court held that since daughter attained majority, the arrears of maintenance of daughter shall be deposited by the husband within a period of four months into her Bank Account to be 3 furnished by the wife. The monthly maintenance of son shall be deposited by the Husband into the Bank Account of son on or before 5th of every month. The arrears of maintenance to be paid to son shall be deposited within a period of four months in to the Bank Account of the son by husband. Wife was directed to furnish the Bank Account details of the children to the husband within one week from the date of the said common order.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order in granting decree of divorce in O.P.No.546 of 2019, wife preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.123 of 2021. Likewise, challenging the order dated 19.07.2021 dismissing O.P.No.751 of 2012 filed by wife seeking judicial separation, wife preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.124 of 2021. Challenging the order awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month each to the children towards maintenance, husband filed Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021. Seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded to the children of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, wife and children filed Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022. 4 FACTS:-
6. To avoid inconvenience, parties hereinafter are referred to as wife, husband and children.
7. Wife and husband knew each other while they are prosecuting MBBS in Guntur Medical College during the year 1992-1997. According to the wife, husband proposed the said marriage. Ultimately they approached their respective parents and their love-cum arranged marriage was performed on 22.05.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. They are highly qualified doctors. They got married with high ambition. The said marriage was consummated. They were blessed with a daughter namely Ms. Ganga Sindhu on 05.08.2001 and a son namely Master Sreekar on 25.04.2007.
8. Wife is working as a consultant fertility specialist and husband is working as a consultant Endocrinologist in Kamineni Hospital, Kingkoti and LB Nagar branches. Though the marriage of wife and husband is a love-cum-arranged marriage; right from the beginning, there were disputes between them. The said aspects were clearly mentioned by both 5 the wife and husband in their respective petitions. Wife also attempted to commit suicide. Thereafter, her parents, her cousin Mr. Ramu and uncle Mr.Suryadevara Rajendra advised her to take treatment for suicidal tendency. In one case, wife examined herself as PW.1 and husband himself as RW.1. The wife and husband narrated the entire incidents right from the marriage, even before the marriage. But the fact remains that there were misunderstandings between them right from the marriage.
9. It is also not in dispute that both of them had disputes while they were in U.K till 2011. Thereafter, they shifted to Hyderabad in May, 2011. Even after returning to Hyderabad, there is no change in the attitude of both the parties.
10. According to husband, wife along with children moved away from matrimonial home on 29.05.2012 and therefore, it is the date of separation. According to wife, she was necked out from the matrimonial home on the said date. Hence, she has filed a petition vide O.P.No.751 of 2012 on 11.06.2012 seeking judicial separation and for recovery of Rs.2,03,75,098/- towards expenses for engagement, marriage and for household articles.
6
11. Wife has also filed a petition vide O.P.No.759 of 2012 on 11.06.2012 itself under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to declare her as permanent guardian of her two children and she has also filed M.C.No.248 of 2012 to enhance the maintenance to Rs.1,00,000/- per month from Rs.50,000/- per month to each of the children.
12. Wife has also filed a complaint against the husband and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.454 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'the D.P.Act'). On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, laid charge sheet against the husband and his parents. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.2218 of 2019 (old C.C.No.343 of 2013). The parents of husband obtained Anticipatory Bail and wife had filed a petition for cancellation of the said Bail.
13. As discussed supra, wife filed the aforesaid O.P.No.751 of 2012 against the husband seeking judicial separation, whereas the husband has filed a petition vide O.P.No.546 of 2019 against the wife seeking 7 dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. Thus, both of them are not interested to lead matrimonial life.
14. It is also relevant to note that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, learned Family Court conducted conciliation and interacted with wife, husband and children. But parties failed to come to an understanding.
15. It is apt to note that the learned Family Court granted visitation rights to the husband in I.A.No.471 of 2015 and against which wife filed a revision. This Court also conducted counseling, which was unsuccessful. Wife has filed a petition to refer the matter to mediation. Sri Erranki Phanikumar, learned counsel appearing for the husband, on instructions, submitted that the husband is not interested in any mediation proceedings. Therefore, without consent of the husband, this Court cannot refer the matter to the mediation.
16. Thus, both wife and husband are not interested in leading marital life. Both of them are highly qualified doctors and even perusal of record would reveal that their daughter was pursuing Bachelor Course in USA 8 and their son is 16 years old at present. Husband has filed Contempt Case against wife alleging willful and deliberate violation of orders granting visitation rights. A perusal of the record would reveal that husband has filed suit vide O.S.No.797 of 2016 against wife seeking damages. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is restrained relationship between wife and husband.
17. Both the wife and husband made serious allegations against each other. According to the wife, husband is having suspicious mind, he used to suspect her fidelity. He suspected that wife maintained illicit relation with the driver. She tried to commit suicide. They have narrated the entire facts and several incidents from the date of marriage. The said facts and the averments in the aforesaid petitions, counters and depositions would reveal that there is a strained relationship between wife and husband. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, husband reported that there is no possibility of settlement as he is not interested in settlement and also in referring the matter to the mediation. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion of the parties. 9
18. A perusal of the pleadings and depositions of wife would reveal that she never thought of ending her relationship with her husband prior to filing the cases in 2012. A meeting was held for mediation at Sailing Club, Secunderabad along with one Mr. Surya Mohan, her husband and her father. She filed the e-mails in respect of the said meeting under Ex.R.18. The said meeting failed in reaching any consensus. Both the wife and husband are not interested in leading marital life.
19. According to the wife her husband did not pay any amount for their children studies, coaching, hobbies and towards their welfare etc. Though husband has filed a petition seeking visitation rights, he has not spent any amount for their needs and he did not even pay maintenance to the wife. It is the specific case of the husband that though Court granted visitation rights, wife did not allow him to avail the same. Thus, she has violated the orders of visitation rights granted by the Family Court as well as this Court. Therefore, husband has filed a contempt case.
20. A perusal of the record would also reveal that parents of wife are not willing for their marriage right from the beginning and there is a 10 constant interference in the matrimonial life of wife and husband by the parents of the wife.
21. Husband contended that Jewellery was presented by his parents at the time of marriage and he has also filed photos and videos in respect of the same. On the other hand, wife deposed that she does not remember of jewellery presented to her either in the engagement or in the marriage, as reflected in the photos and videos.
22. As discussed supra, though their marriage was performed in the year 1997, they have filed the aforesaid applications in the year 2012 and one application vide O.P.No.546 of 2019 (originally instituted in 2014) by the husband in the year 2014. Though the wife contended that when she lived with her in-laws, they have harassed her mentally and physically, but, she failed to prove the same producing any evidence. She neither filed any complaint against her husband nor against her in- laws. Husband also contended that as the wife and her parents threatened him on 09.06.1998, he had lodged a complaint (Ex.P11 in O.P.No.546 of 2019) on 10.06.1998, but no action was taken on the same. 11
23. Wife also alleged that husband used to harass and punish both the children for every small mistake and that he used to hang them by holding their legs, which resulted in bleeding from mouth, but she failed to prove the same by producing legally acceptable evidence. In fact hanging children by holding legs by a highly qualified Doctor and bleeding from mouth is improbable. Moreover, burden lies on the wife to prove the said allegations by producing oral and documentary evidence, but she failed to prove the same and also failed to discharge the said burden.
24. As discussed supra, gap developed between the wife and husband, but they did not take any steps to fill the said gap. Counseling conducted by the Family Court and this Court ended in failure and the parties are not in a position to settle the issues amicably. The wife also alleged that husband subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically, due to which she went into depression. The said allegation is contrary to the evidence available on record.
25. In a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C vide M.C.No.248 of 2012, the wife admitted that she has attained 10th Rank in P.G 12 Examination. Therefore, the said allegation made by the wife that due to the harassment meted out by the husband, she went into depression appears to be improbable. The said aspect was also considered by the learned Family Court in the impugned common order. Wife has also made serious allegations against the Husband that he has forced her to abort her pregnancy, but she failed to produce any evidence either oral or documentary.
26. Husband also made serious allegations against the wife that at the instance of wife, his daughter abused him in most filthy language, but he failed to elicit the same from the wife during her cross examination. He has also made a serious allegation that the words used by wife against him are so serious mental health issues, which specifically require medical certification, to term him in such way. The wife termed him as psychic patient and even went to the extent of terming him of having split personality, which is a serious medical condition. But she has not produced any evidence to prove the same. The said incidents and allegations made by them against each other lead to gap between them and there is no possibility of leading their marital life. Despite blessed 13 with two children, there was no change in the attitude of wife and husband. Wife also made a serious allegation against her husband that husband hit her head to wall on small issues on 21.05.2010, but there was no medical record about that incident and the same was not informed to any person. Another incident narrated by wife i.e., hitting her head to wall by the husband on 13.07.2010. For that incident, the wife produced medical record dated 02.08.2010, under Ex.R12, which was marked in O.P.No.546 of 2019. A letter was issued by Dr. Sian Morgan to Bridge End Surgery unit at Chester-le-Street, referring the wife for further opinion. Relying on Ex.R12, wife contended that she was subjected to physical cruelty by the husband.
27. A perusal of the record also would reveal that both wife and husband relocated to India on 06.05.2011 and settled down in Hyderabad. The wife mentioned about the cruelty of husband in Hyderabad referring an incident on 08.06.2011 in which she sustained injury to her index finger and another incident of hitting her mouth in car, but she did not mention the details of the said incident. The wife further referred that the husband throttled her neck and twisted her hand in September, 2011 and 14 bent her index finger on 12.10.2011 resulting in dislocation of bone, on next day i.e., 13.10.2011, she was necked out of the house and she was not allowed to join his company and the children for six weeks. Further, wife has placed reliance on Ex.R9, SMS chats between the parties, i.e., R10, R11, R19, R28, R31, R34, R35 and Ex.P26 to P37 E-mails.
28. Learned Family Court in paragraph No.25 (xxiii) and (xxxia) reproduced some of the said chats/SMS messages. On consideration of the said messages, the learned Family Court gave a specific finding that there is a strained relation between both wife and husband and upon perusal of the entire oral and documentary, learned Family Court also gave a specific finding that wife failed to prove her claim on judicial separation and that husband is not entitled for recovery of articles as claimed by him.
29. Upon considering the necessities of children and also earning capacity of both the parties, the learned Family Court directed to file the affidavits as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 15 Rajnesh vs Neha and another 1. They have filed affidavits accordingly. Learned Family Court also considered the documents filed by the parties to show the necessities and expenses of the children and also the earning capacity of the parties. On consideration of the entire evidence, learned Family Court held that husband has to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month per child towards maintenance.
30. Admittedly daughter Ms. Gangana Sindu attained majority and she is pursuing her studies in USA. Boy is 16 years old and he is also pursuing his studies. Therefore, the boy is entitled for maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month towards his expenses. On consideration of entire evidence, learned Family Court dismissed O.P No.751 of 2012 filed by wife seeking judicial separation and allowed O.P.No.759 of 2012 filed by wife to declare her as a permanent guardian to both the children, allowed M.C.No.248 of 2012 in part and allowed O.P.No.546 of 2019 filed by husband seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between them. The aforesaid common order is a reasoned and well founded. 1 AIR 2021 SC 569 16 Both wife and husband failed to make out any case to interfere with the said common order.
31. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for wife and children and Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for husband have made their respective submissions extensively attacking the common order. But as discussed supra, learned Family Court upon considering the entire evidence rightly came to the conclusion in all the four petitions mentioned supra.
32. A perusal of record would reveal that there were disputes between wife and husband right from the marriage. Wife has attempted to commit suicide once. Therefore, there was gap between them. They both failed to fill the gap between themselves to lead marital life happily. Subsequently, the incidents narrated by both wife and husband would reveal that even though they went to USA and UK, there is no change in the attitude of both the parties. After returning to India in the year 2011 also there is no change in the attitude of both the parties. Thus, gap between them was developed and none of them have initiated proper steps to settle the issues between themselves amicably to lead marital life 17 and none of them have filed any petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
33. Ultimately, wife filed two petitions i.e., O.P.No.751 of 2012 seeking judicial separation and O.P.No.759 of 2012 to declare her as a permanent guardian to both the children and wife along with children filed M.C.No.248 of 2012 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. All these petitions pertain to the year 2012. Husband entered his appearance filed counters and filed O.P.No.546 of 2019 to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.797 of 2016 against wife for damages.
34. As discussed supra, on the complaint lodged by the wife, police registered a Criminal Case against the husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A,325, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. He got bail and she has filed an application seeking cancellation of the said bail. He has filed a Contempt Case against the wife alleging willful and deliberate violation of the visitation rights granted to him.
18
35. The said facts would reveal that there is a strained relationship between wife and husband. Despite conducting conciliation by the learned Family Court, and by this Court, there is no possibility of reunion of the parties. On consideration of the said aspects, learned Family Court dissolved the marriage of both the parties, held on 22.05.1997 by granting decree of divorce. There is no error in it. Therefore, we are also of the view that there is no possibility of reunion of both the parties
36. Husband filed Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021 challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month per child and he wants to pay only Rs.15,000/- per month which is unsustainable since the boy is studying in CHIREC International School, Hyderabad and he needs Rs.50,000/- per month from father. His needs are explained by producing supporting documents. Hence, the Revision Case filed by the husband to reduce the maintenance granted to the children is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
37. Likewise, wife and children filed Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 claiming to enhance the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Family Court from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the paying 19 capacity of the husband and expenditure of the son only learned Family Court granted the said amount. It is a reasoned order. There is no error and hence no interference is warranted. Therefore, the said Revision Case is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
38. The learned Family Court upon considering the entire evidence oral and documentary granted decree of divorce. Therefore, F.C.A.No.123 of 2021 filed by wife and F.C.A.No.124 of 2021 filed by wife are liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
39. In the result, F.C.A.No.123 and 124 of 2021, Crl.R.C.Nos.656 of 2021 and 159 of 2022 are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA Date: 07.06.2024 VSU/PVT