Telangana High Court
K Arvind Kumar vs K Sheela Rani on 22 March, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.405 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order dated 28.04.2017 in O.P.No.1110 of 2012 passed by the learned Additional Family Court Judge, at Hyderabad.
2. One K.Aravind Kumar/husband filed O.P for divorce against his wife K.Sheela Rani/respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner in the trial Court examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. Respondent examined herself as R.W.1. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire record.
2
4. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband and respondent/wife as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
5. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was performed on 06.05.2009, and after marriage, they lived together for two weeks in Phoolbagh, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Later, petitioner shifted the family to Ahmedabad, where he was working as Telephone Operator in army. Respondent started quarrelling with petitioner on petty issues and if petitioner comes late from office, she used to shout at him in the presence of neighbors. Whenever petitioner telephoned to his mother to enquire about her health, respondent used to quarrel with him. After one year, petitioner and respondent returned to Hyderabad and stayed in the same house. After one month, petitioner was transferred to Leh Ladak, Kashmir. After one month, Government has acquired the houses in slum area, Phoolbagh, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, where the petitioner was residing and accordingly the mother of the 3 petitioner and respondent took house on rent in Raj Mohalla, Hyderabad.
6. Petitioner's mother is working as attender in Government High School, Hyderguda. Respondent never took care of mother of petitioner and did not attend to any household works. Respondent was also working as teacher in a private school and used to come to house late in the night. When petitioner's mother questioned, respondent used to quarrel with her. Whenever petitioner comes to Hyderabad, his mother used to kiss and hug him, but it was objected by respondent. Respondent used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language over phone, because of which he could not concentrate on his job. Several panchayats were also held by elders, but there was no change in the attitude of the respondent. Respondent gave birth to a female child on 03.02.2011. When petitioner requested respondent to join his company, she demanded separate family and did not join his company and she started living in her parental house since October, 2010. She also telephoned to Commanding Officer and demanded 4 him not to sanction leave to the petitioner besides demanding that petitioner should make fixed deposit of Rs.2 lakhs in the name of respondent. She addressed a letter to Commanding Officer by making false allegations against petitioner. Petitioner deposited Rs.80,000/- in the name of his daughter, Shreya.
7. When petitioner applied for premature discharge from army, respondent raised objection demanding petitioner to continue in the job. Petitioner was discharged from his job on 30.06.2012. Respondent went to Bangalore and met Group SM and Officers and requested them to take petitioner into army again without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. Respondent lodged a complaint against petitioner on 11.07.2012 with false allegations. Petitioner is a sports person in Boxing and recipient of State Gold Medal, Sub Junior National Gold Medal and Junior National Silver Medal, as such he was appointed as coach in the army. Though, he was interested to live with the respondent, she did not join his company and meted out cruelty on him.
5
8. Respondent filed a counter denying all the material allegations and further stated that her parents have Rs.3,50,000/- in cash, 13 tulas of gold and household articles worth Rs.1 lakh to petitioner towards dowry besides spending Rs.8 lakhs towards marriage expenses. She stated that after marriage, petitioner and his parents started harassing her and abused her in filthy language besides beating her on petty issues. When she was pregnant, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and petitioner attacked her and beat her, as such she left to her parents' house. Petitioner used to come to the house late in the night in drunken condition and used to beat her severely. Petitioner did not turn up to see the child for four months after her birth. He and his mother harassed respondent by demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and threatened to give divorce and also threatened to kill her and also stated that petitioner would perform another marriage.
9. Petitioner and respondent were living separately since July, 2012. Their evidence is oath against oath. The trial Court observed that disputes between petitioner and 6 respondent are clearly wear and tear of the family and they were blessed with a female child. As the petitioner failed to establish the ground of cruelty, the trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant/husband preferred the present appeal.
10. In the evidence, it was stated that respondent has no interest to join the petitioner's company, but petitioner is interested to live with her. The judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court which are relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant regarding irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 of Constitution of India is not applicable to this case.
11. In the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, 1 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:
If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of 1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 7 inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.
12. As per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court between Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita 2, it was held as follows:
Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a 'human conduct' and 'behavior' in a matrimonial relationship.
13. Cruelty can be even unintentional and the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case. As per the case of Samar Gosh (supra) it was held as follows:
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.2
MANU/SC/0456/2023 8
14. In the light of the above citations and guidelines, now it is for the Court to see whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty or not.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that respondent was not living with his mother and his mother is working as attender in school and she was residing near to her sister's house. He mainly contended that when he enquired about the health of his mother, respondent used to pick up quarrel with him. Respondent also worked as teacher for one month. Several panchayaths were held between the parties and even they advised the petitioner to stay separately with his wife. As such, he was residing separately after the birth of child. It clearly shows that respondent was not interested to stay with her mother-in-law, though her mother-in-law was working. Whenever, petitioner comes to home from army, his mother used to hug and kiss him and even such expression of love by his mother was objected by the respondent. Natural expression of love and affection 9 between son and mother was not properly understood by the respondent.
16. The petitioner was working in army from the past 16 years and he was away from the family, as such, he applied for premature discharge and accordingly he was discharged on 30.06.2012, but respondent objected the same and went to Bangalore and requested the officials to take him to army again. Petitioner stated that she went to Bangalore without his knowledge and consent and she also addressed a letter to the Commanding Officer not to sanction any leave to the petitioner. Respondent asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.2 lakhs in her name. As such, he deposited Rs.80,000/- from his savings in the name of their daughter. Petitioner stated that he was sports person and as a result, he was appointed as Coach in the army. Respondent used to abuse him in filthy language, as such he could not able to concentrate on his job.
17. Respondent denied all the facts and stated that petitioner used to come home in a drunken condition and beat her. Even her mother-in-law and sister-in-law also 10 beat her when she was working, as such she went to her parents' house.
18. Basing on the allegations and counter allegations made by both parties against each other clearly shows that there is no compatibility between the parties. In the evidence of respondent, she clearly admitted that they were living separately from 25.09.2012. The petitioner in his evidence stated that he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir and he could not get leave, as such he had seen his daughter after four months. Petitioner stated that after filing of the case, respondent approached him and requested to join her, but he did not care about it, as he filed the case, after that she gave the police complaint against him. Respondent denied that she lodged a complaint after filing of O.P for divorce. The said O.P. was filed on 24.07.2012. She also stated that petitioner was arrested and detained in judicial custody for 2 to 3 days in connection with the complaint given by her. 11
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Jayachandra Vs Aneel Kaur 3 held as follows:
The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife.
20. The cruelty depends upon the facts of each case. In this case petitioner was working in army and he intended 3 AIR 2005 SC 534 12 to take care of his mother and the respondent refused to stay with her and she used to pick up quarrel with him whenever he enquired about health condition of his mother on phone. She also addressed a letter to the Commanding Officer with false allegations against petitioner and asked him not to grant leave to the petitioner and further insisted him to deposit an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in her name. As a result, petitioner deposited Rs.80,000/- in the name of his daughter. When he has taken voluntary retirement to stay with the family, respondent went to Bangalore to meet Officers without the consent of the petitioner and requested them to take petitioner again into the army. Petitioner contended that he worked for about 16 years in the army and he was far away to the family, as such he applied for premature discharge, but the respondent objected the same. Even after voluntary retirement, he was working in central bank. The conduct of the respondent is too much interference even it is work place and clearly amounts to mental cruelty against the petitioner, as such petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 13
21. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial Court 28.04.2017 in O.P.No.1110 of 2012 and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The respondent has completed her MBA and worked as teacher in a private school for one month and the daughter is with her. Appellant/Petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards educational expenses of his daughter and Rs.10 lakhs towards her marriage expenses within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 22.03.2024 CHS