Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Talluri Nagamani Mary Mani vs Talluri Krishna 3 Others on 1 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
C.M.A.No.563 of 2008
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad)
Heard the learned counsel for Appellant and Respondents.
2. The Appellant is the wife and Respondent No.1 is her
husband in the present Appeal. Respondent No.1-husband filed a
petition seeking divorce under Section 10(i) of Indian Divorce Act,
1869 against the Appellant-wife on the ground of Mental Cruelty.
3. After trial, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole
passed a decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent No.1-husband
by Order dated 26.06.2007 in Divorce Original Petition No.6 of 2004
as he successfully established Mental Cruelty against his wife. Wife
filed the present Appeal challenging this Order. On the death of
Respondent No.1/husband during the pendency of this Appeal,
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (wife and two daughters respectively of the
Respondent No.1/husband) were brought on record as legal
representatives vide Order dated 10.03.2017 in CMAMP No.2026 of
2016 and 292 of 2017.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the order
impugned herein is erroneous inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge
rendered a finding of Mental Cruelty against the Appellant-wife, for
the reason of filing criminal cases against the husband and his family
members. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, filing
of criminal cases by Appellant-wife against the Respondent No.1-
husband, does not constitute Mental Cruelty.
5. This Court has gone through the order of the Trial Court. It
is seen from the facts narrated therein, that the Appellant has filed
C.C.No.69 of 2004 under Section 498-A IPC against the Respondent
No.1-husband, his parents and his sister, which eventually ended in
acquittal.
6. The second case which is narrated in the impugned order is
about another criminal case filed by the Appellant against the
Respondent No.1-husband in Cr.No.4 of 2005 under Section 498-A
and 420 IPC and under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. While
noting that ever since the C.C.No.69 of 2004 has ended in acquittal,
the Appellant-wife has been living separately, this case was also
dismissed.
7. The 3rd case was filed by the Appellant-wife in October,
2004 for bigamy, which also ended in dismissal for having filed a
false case. Apart from these three cases, the Trial Court has also taken
into account the deposition of RW.2-Brudula Ramesh, who is none
other than the cousin of the Appellant herein, who categorically
deposed that the Appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- from the
Respondent No.1-husband for not foisting a false criminal case
against him. This fact was elicited from RW.2-Brudula Ramesh
during the cross examination.
8. The instances cited by the learned 1st Additional District
Judge, Ongole in the order impugned herein, in no uncertain terms
establish that the Appellant acted in a cruel manner and harassed her
husband by foisting false cases, which ended in acquittal.
9. This view of this Court is fortified by the ratio handed down
by the Apex Court in RANI NARASIMHA SASTRY vs. RANI
SUNEELA RANI1. Para Nos.13 and 14 reads:
"13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the
respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC making
serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which
ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section
498-A IPC not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have
been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each
other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to proceeding
initiated by the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court
made the following observation in para 15: (Rani Narsimha Sastry
case, SCC OnLine Hyd)
"15..... Merely because the respondent has sought for
maintenance or has filed a complaint against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A
IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding
that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts
to cruelty."
The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is
true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution
for redressal of his or her grievances and lodge a first information
report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR
cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But, when a person undergoes
a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under
Section 498-A IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot
be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the husband. As per
the pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14-8-
2005, they lived together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are
separately living for more than a decade now.
14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we conclude that the appellant
has made a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on
(2020) 18 SCC 247
the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955".
10. In this view of the matter, this Court confirms the findings
of the 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole in Divorce Original
Petition No.6 of 2004 dated 26.06.2007 to the effect that the actions
and conduct of the Appellant-wife towards her husband-Respondent
No.1 herein constitutes Mental Cruelty. This Court is of the view that
there are no grounds to interfere in the present Appeal. Hence, the
Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
________________________________
(U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J)
________________________________
(G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Date:01-07-2022.
JKS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
C.M.A.No.563 of 2008
01.07.2022
JKS
