Telangana High Court
Devi Narayan Mathur vs Sheethal Mathur on 27 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CCCA.NO.322 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02-06-2018 in OS.No.520 of 2014 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under, their suit for damages against the respondents herein was dismissed, the plaintiff in the above referred suit have filed this first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment, allow their claim and pass a decree against the respondents.
2. Before adverting to the grounds on which this appeal is filed, it is just and necessary to extract the pleadings of both parties and the judgment by which the suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
3. The appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents of the 3rd appellant. The 2nd respondent is father of the first respondent. The marriage between appellant No.3 was performed with 1st respondent on 11-02-2008 as per Hindu rituals and customs prevailing in their community. Soon after 2 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 the marriage, respondent No.1 joined the company of her husband-the 3rd appellant herein at her matrimonial house. However, she could not adjust and adhere to the matrimonial necessities. She did not want to stay with her in-laws and decide to break the family. The appellants have claimed that respondent No.1 moved out of the matrimonial house without informing anybody and repeated the same twice or thrice, on the guise of continuing the education. When she made a request, the appellants herein allowed her to join the matrimonial home with appellant No.3, however, by giving some time with a hope that she may mend her ways and return. However, she did not give any sign of her joining the company of 3rd appellant and his parents.
4. As per the further averments made in the plaint, the appellants have claimed that there were disputes between the couple which ultimately lead to exchange of letters/notices and on a later date, respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before Mirchowk Police Station. The police have visited the house of appellants herein on 28-10-2010 and Inspector of Police detained appellant Nos.1 and 3 for the whole day in spite of their showing all the documents 3 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 including the letters exchanged between the parties, draft divorce proceedings, but the police compelled the 3rd appellant herein to return the leftover articles. The appellants No.1 and 2 could not avoid the pressure, thereby, handed over the leftover articles to 1st respondent on 29-10-2010.
5. The appellants have further averred that against the understanding between the parties for obtaining divorce and though the 3rd appellant issued post-dated cheques towards permanent alimony, respondent No.1 did not come forward for divorce as per the understanding, thereby, the appellant was compelled to issue instructions to the Banker not to honour the cheque. Subsequently, on 05-12-2010, which happened to be a Sunday, two police personnel from S.R. Nagar visited the house of appellants along with the 2nd respondent and took the appellants No.1 and 3 to the police station, compelled them to shell out the amounts demanded by the respondents. The appellants have paid the amounts with a hope of getting divorce, so that they can put an end to the harassment and mental agony.
6. The appellants having alleged that the respondents lodged a false complaint, dragged them to police 4 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 station, and detained them in police station for several hours, thereby, caused damage to the high respect which they used to enjoy in the community. The 1st appellant is a retired officer from South Central Railways, 2nd appellant is highly qualified house-hold lady, thereby, the appellants have filed the suit for damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- since the acts committed by the respondents caused damage to their reputation and also caused physical and mental pain.
7. The respondents have appeared before the trial Court, filed a written statement admitting the marriage but denied the other averments. According to the statement filed by the respondents, they never caused any damage to the reputation of the appellants herein and they have extracted the events that had occurred between the families. According to the sum and substance of the written statement filed by the respondents, they have claimed that the 1st respondent herein was physically man-handled and neck out from the matrimonial house, she suffered injuries on her body. She was referred to Hospital but no case was registered by Mirchowk police and subsequently, on the influence of police, the appellants herein obtained the signatures of respondents 5 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 No.1 and 2 and brother-in-law of respondent No.1 on MOU even after returning the leftover articles. Therefore, according to the respondents, there was physical and mental harassment at the hands of the appellants which prompted the 1st respondent to lodge a complaint and subsequently, there was divorce between the couple.
8. They have also claimed that the appellants are not having good relations with the neighbours or the community people, thereby, the question of lowering their reputation in the society and community does not rise. The appellants have suppressed the material facts and material documents. They have also suppressed the fact that the 3rd appellant and respondent No.1 filed divorce petition vide OP.No.1696 of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad. But failed to plead that the divorce was also obtained in pursuance of the undertaking dated 16-06-2011. There is no cause of action for the appellants to file the above referred suit and sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. As could be seen from the record that though the respondents filed the petition under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, the trial Court dismissed the 6 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 petition on merits. The respondents have approached the High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition, the same was disposed by giving liberty to the respondents to file their written statement and the trial Court was directed to frame a specific issue as to the maintainability of the suit claim. Therefore, the trial Court framed a preliminary issue for consideration to decide whether the suit can be tried in a full fledged manner or not. Accordingly, the trial Court framed the following preliminary issue :
Whether the suit is maintainable from any subsistence cause of action that was not barred by law?
10. The appellants have marked Exs.P1 to P3 and respondents have marked Exs.R1 to R20. Since a preliminary issue was framed, the parties did not adduce any oral evidence. However, advanced their respective arguments. The learned trial Judge having appreciated the documents marked by both parties and arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents, decided the preliminary issue against the appellants herein and dismissed the suit.
7 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018
11. Even though, this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed based on the discussion of the trial Court on a preliminary issue and though the appellants are none other than the plaintiffs in the original suit, the grounds under which this appeal is filed, it is claimed as if, the trial Court passed the judgment without going through the documents marked as Exs.R1 to R20, as if they were filed by the appellants. In fact exhibits R1 to R20 were filed by the respondents. In the second ground of the appeal itself, the appellants have further claimed that the trial Court gave much importance to Exs.P1 to P3 said to have been marked by the respondents, in fact they were marked by the appellants itself. The appellants have claimed the trial Court while deciding the preliminary issue without deciding the issue preliminarily ought to have conducted a full fledged trial and ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to put forth his (in fact their) version by adducing the evidence on his part. The appellants have also claimed that the trial Court while disposing the suit overlooked its own order in IA.No. 564 of 2014 in which the trial Court observed that unless and until there is fullfledged trial, the issue involved in the suit 8 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 could not be decided. Though the said order was confirmed by the High Court in CRP.No.560 of 2016, the said fact was ignored by the trial Court, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
12. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court came to an incorrect conclusion with regard to the cause of action on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court ought to have considered the pleadings of the plaint and considered Exs.R1 to R20 and as a matter of fact, due to the regular harassment caused by the respondent, it caused mental agony and social boycott of the appellants, thereby, it cannot be compensated by any means as the names of the family members got defamed by the respondents. Therefore, according to the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, they have claimed that the trial Court disposed the suit without affording opportunity to produce the evidence, thereby, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.
13. As could be from the grounds under which this appeal is filed, the narration seems to be the appeal is filed as if by one of the plaintiffs, in fact, the appeal is filed by all the 9 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 three appellants. Whatever it may be according to the grounds on which the appeal is filed, the appellants sought to claim that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed their suit without recording evidence and an opportunity could have been provided, thereby, sought for setting aside the impugned judgment.
14. In view of this specific pleadings of parties before the trial Court and in view of the order of the High Court in CRP preferred by the respondents and in view of the grounds on which this appeal is preferred, the following points would arose for consideration in this first Civil Appeal.
1. Whether the appellants were able to place sufficient material before the Court to show that their reputation was affected by the act/conduct of the st 1 respondent/defendant No.1?
2. Whether the appellants have got cause of action to file the suit seeking damages from the respondents/defendants?
3. Whether the trial Court was wrong in disposing the suit on the basis of the discussion on a preliminary issue without giving an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence?
15. As per the narration of the events, according to plaint and as per the grounds on which the appeal is filed, the appellants/plaintiffs have claimed that the 1st respondent who 10 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 was married to the 3rd appellant herein herself left the matrimonial home, subjected the appellants herein to mental harassment by filing police complaint and pressurizing them to shell down money. Therefore, they sought for damages. On the other hand, the respondents have claimed that the appellants herein harassed the 1st respondent both physically and mentally. She was objected to cruelty, thereby, she was forced to file complaint before police. Subsequently, in view of the understanding, the matter ended by filing divorce petition which was subsequently allowed since the petition is filed for damages on the ground that the respondents caused damage to the reputation of the appellants. As the respondents claimed that there was no such occasion for the respondents to cause damage to the reputation of the appellants and in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the appellants herein have no cause of action, the trial Court based on Exs.P1 to P3 and R1 to R20, decided the suit preliminarily.
16. As rightly absorbed by the trial Court, there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. There is no dispute about the marriage that took place between 11 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 appellant No.1 and/plaintiff No.1 and respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The appellants have claimed before the trial Court that respondent No.1 left their house on more than one occasion without their knowledge. Subsequently, there were disputes between the couple. It seems from the record that a draft divorce petition has been prepared at the instance of both parties. Perhaps, when there was failure on the part of the appellants, there was a necessity for the respondent No.1 even though it is accepted that she filed a complaint due to which the appellants were summoned to police station, it cannot be said that the respondents had any intention to cause damage to the reputation of the appellants herein. The documents produced by both parties clearly indicates the circumstances under which a draft divorce petition was prepared that too with the mutual consent of parties and issuance of cheques which were subsequently dishonored and the other circumstances under which second complaint was filed by the 1st respondent before police, S.R. Nagar. Therefore, the above stated circumstances indicates that only because of the trouble between the couple, there was an understanding for obtaining mutual divorce and the appellants 12 SSRN, J CCCA.No.322 of 2018 No.1 to 3 did not abide by the understanding which forced the respondents to avail the police help. Therefore, the appellants did not place any material to show that they have got cause of action to file the suit on the ground that their reputation was damaged and they are entitled to compensation/damages from the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court rightly appreciated the arguments as well as the documents and rightly dismissed the claim, thereby, there are no grounds to allow the appeal or to direct the respondents herein to pay damages of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
________________________ SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J 27th March, 2024.
PLV