Vejendla Luke Paul vs Bandaru Neena Sravanthi The State ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9195 AP

                                     1



     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2216 OF 2010

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the

petitioner, who is respondent in M.C.No.54 of 2009, on the file

of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge,

Guntur, challenging the order, dated 16.08.2010, under which

the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, directed the respondent herein

to pay maintenance of Rs.3,600/- per month.

2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will

hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the

sake of convenience.

3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, in the

maintenance case is as follows:

(i) The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took

place on 11.04.2008 at the house of Prayer Ministries Church at

Ramakrishnapur, Manchirial, Adilabad, as per Christian customs

and tradition. It was consummated. Prior to that, the father of

the respondent enquired the Pastor by name K. Vedamani for

marriage alliances to his son and that who can afford to give

dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to his son. The Pastor K. Vedamani

proposed the petitioner as a suitable alliance to his son.

Accordingly, the marriage was fixed. The parents of the

petitioner agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, Rs.50,000/-

towards marriage expenses and 10 Tulas of gold, etc. The

respondent is Junior Research Fellow in Indian Institute of

Medical Technology, Tarnaka, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

(ii) At the time of negotiations, it was agreed that wife

should live with the husband at Hyderabad, but after marriage,

her father-in-law requested the petitioner to stay with them in

their official quarter at Ramakrishnapur. On 13.04.2008, they

have planned for reception at Telugu Baptist Church,

Kannavarithota. For that purpose, on 12.04.2008, they have

reached Mancherial Railway Station to go to Guntur, but her

father-in-law sent for them back to Ramakrishnapur from

Railway Station and created scene alleging that she did not

perform "Yarnalu". The petitioner's uncle and aunt, who are

then with her, tried to pacify the matter, but her father-in-law

raised his voice and fisted on her face saying that she was not

following his instructions. On seeing this highhanded conduct,

her uncle and aunt Mr. & Mrs. Rev. K. Prakasha Rao came to her

rescue, but they were pushed aside by the respondent and his

parents.

(iii) As a result, they sustained simple injuries and got

frightened. In such circumstances, they thought of giving police

report, but control themselves since it was on the very next day

of marriage. In any event, as directed by her father-in-law,

they have distributed Yarnalu and managed to come out and

reach Guntur in the evening train. Even prior to Reception on

13.04.2008, her father-in-law made illegal demand of gold

bracelet and Hero Honda Motorcycle. On 15.04.2008, bidding

good bye to all customs and traditions, the petitioner was taken

to matrimonial house at Ramakrishnapur.

(iv) On 16.04.2008 while she was attending to household

work, the father-in-law abused her on trivial issue and rudely

and vulgarly frightened her. Taking advantage of this, her

brother-in-law David Paul beat her with the slipper in the

presence of the respondent. However, he did not come to her

rescue and supported his parents and brother. On the same

day, she informed the same to his uncle Rev. K. Prakasha Rao

and on hearing this, he developed heart attack and admitted in

private hospital, Chilakaluripet on the same day.

(v) Even since 16.04.2008, she was put up untold mental

agony due to behavior of the respondent and his father. During

absence of the respondent, his father used to insist upon to

sleep on the floor beside him in the main hall. She was

constrained to obey him to escape his wrath. The respondent

used to visit Ramakrishnapur from Hyderabad at weekends. The

room allotted to them was without any bolt and used to be kept

open. Her father-in-law used to enter into the bedroom

frequently and disturbed their privacy only to show his

domination. When she questioned about this attitude of

supremacy, the true colour of the respondent and his parents

came out. It was understood that, the said behavior was to

remind her that she should bring gold bracelet, Hero Honda

Motorcycle and balance of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was actually

demanded by them as dowry. When she expressed her inability

to comply these greedy demands, her father-in-law threatened

that she has to face divorce and the respondent would marry

another affluent lady.

(vi) In that connection, she came to know that her

husband had already got affair with a Lecturer in A.M.G. College,

Chilakaluripet. On 04.06.2008, on the grouse that she would

not comply with their illegal demands, she was necked out of

matrimonial house without justifiable cause. Due to this, she

called upon her parents over phone and they came and pleaded

with her in-laws. They bluntly demanded that the petitioner

would not be allowed to have conjugal life with husband unless

their demands were complied. When the petitioner contacted

the respondent over phone about this attitude of his father, he

carelessly replied "let us discontinue our relationship" and later

started avoiding her phone calls. In order to save her marital

life, she had gone to Hyderabad on 01.07.2008 and pleaded

with him to set up separate family as agreed upon by them at

the time of marriage talks, but he did not accept.

(vii) In order to save their face from their guilty nature,

her father-in-law made propaganda that she had blamed

husband as impotent. As there was no other go, she had issued

legal notice, dated 03.01.2009 for restitution of conjugal rights.

Having received the notice, the respondent along with his

parents and relations came to Guntur on 08.02.2009 and

22.02.2009, but insisted upon complying their illegal demands.

The parents of the petitioner were helpless and therefore, she

was constrained to stay with her parents.

(viii) Due to these disturbances, she is unable to

concentrate on any work, but constrained to depend upon her

parents for sustenance. The respondent is having sufficient

movable and immovable properties in and around

Ramakrishnapur and continuing Post Graduation at Indian

Institute of Commercial Technology, Hyderabad. He gets

handsome salary from the Institute. He neglected to maintain

the petitioner and she is unable to maintain herself. Hence the

petition.

4) The respondent filed a counter denying the

allegations in the petition and alleging as follows:

(i) Their marriage was solemnized at Ramakrishnapur of

Adilabad, instead of Guntur at the behest of the petitioner's

parents against the will and wish of local Pastor suggested by

the respondent's parents. Rev. K. Vedamani, Pastor of Telugu

Baptist Church, Guntur is not competent to perform marriages

outside Guntur District.

(ii) After marriage, the respondent was brought to Guntur

in routine manner and nuptial ceremony was arranged as a

matter of custom. While so, the petitioner has refused and

showed non-cooperation for consummation of marriage. The

respondent has taken the incident in a lighter manner, but the

petitioner and her mother have started propaganda among

friends and relations at Guntur, that the respondent is impotent.

The petitioner's mother speaks values and insults and humilities

the respondent openly the petitioner came to Ramakrishnapur

along with the respondent and spent a few days, but she has

not cooperated for consummation of marriage. The petitioner's

mother has gathered relations and came to Ramakrishnapur and

held a Panchayat as if the respondent was unfit for marital life.

(iii) Immediately, after those incidents, the petitioner was

brought to Guntur in unethical manner and since then she is

staying separately against the wish of the respondent. The

respondent and his relations tried their level best to get the

petitioner back to Ramakrishnapur, but her parents did not

respond properly. On the other hand, the petitioner was sent

away to undisclosed place to see that she did not participate in

the discussions with elders. Ultimately, the respondent issued

legal notice, dated 11.10.2008 to the petitioner, but it could not

be served due to refusal of notice by the petitioner's parents.

Therefore, he was constrained to file divorce petition in District

Court, Adilabad and it is pending. Several times, summons have

been issued in that OP, but the petitioner was not served due to

fraud played by her parents. Suppressing the material facts, the

petitioner filed these cases and also Domestic Violence Act case

to harass the respondent. In fact, no dowry was paid to them for

the marriage. Moreover, the petitioner has successfully retained

150 grams of gold ornaments presented to her by his family at

the time of marriage.

(iv) He has never refused nor neglected to provide

maintenance to the petitioner at any time. He is doing Research

work, but not any job. He stays elsewhere, but not with

parents. The petitioner is leading comfortable life by deserting

the husband. By making false propaganda that he is impotent,

the petitioner has illegally and willfully withdrawn from conjugal

society and is living separately without giving even her husband

to the respondent. The petitioner's parents have performed the

marriage with their small contribution of money for expenses.

For the Post Graduation, the petitioner has availed education

loan and the bank authorities have filed suit against her for

recovery of the loan installments. Therefore, they have no

capacity to pay the dowry amount. The respondent does not

have any movable or immovable properties. Hence the petition

is liable to be dismissed.

5) During the course of enquiry before the Judge,

Family Court, Guntur, petitioner examined as P.W.1 and got

examined P.W.2, who is the Pastor and P.W.3, who is the

Church elder. She got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and X.1. The

respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and did not examine any

other witnesses. The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, by

virtue of a common order in M.C.No.54 of 2009 and

D.O.P.No.118 of 2009, directed the respondent to pay monthly

maintenance of Rs.3,600/- to the petitioner on or before 10th

day of every month with effect from 10.09.2010. It is also a

different aspect that the learned Judge also allowed

D.O.P.No.118 of 2009, directing to restore matrimonial life.

Insofar as the present Criminal Revision Case is concerned, the

order relating to M.C.No.54 of 2009 is under challenge.

6) Now, in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the

points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the petitioner in M.C.No.54 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, was able to establish that the respondent neglected to maintain her and that

she had no means to maintain herself and that the respondent had sufficient means to maintain her?

(2) Whether the impugned order suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety?

Points 1 and 2:

7) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner

represented that the Revision Case may be disposed on merits

treating his arguments as heard.

8) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor informed that the

second respondent is a formal party.

9) Sri Teja Sai, learned counsel, representing Sri K.G.

Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the first respondent, sought

to support of the judgment of the Court below on the ground

that the learned Judge on overall appreciation of the evidence

on record and by recording consent reasons, granted

maintenance and that the same is not liable to be interfered

with.

10) P.W.1 before the trial Court is no other than the

petitioner and she filed chief examination affidavit reiterating

the contents of her petition before the trial Court. The chief

examination affidavits of P.Ws.2 and 3 are filed to support the

cause of the petitioner. Petitioner got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9

before the trial Court. There was evidence of R.W.1 reiterating

the contents of the counter.

11) As seen from Ex.A.1, it is the letter evidencing the

exchange of lanchanams, dowry and valuables for the purpose

of marriage. It was prior to the marriage i.e., on 18.02.2008

signed by father of the petitioner and father-in-law apart from

caste elders. Ex.A.2 is the marriage certificate. Ex.A.3 is the

endorsement of father-in-law of the petitioner, dated

06.03.2008, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,016/- from

the father of the petitioner. Ex.A.4 is office copy of legal notice,

dated 03.01.2009, issued by her to the respondent. Ex.A.5 is

copy of certificate of posting. Exs.A6 and A.7 are the registered

postal receipts. Exs.A.8 and A.9 are the photographs showing

the payment of dowry.

12) During the course of cross examination certain

answers are given by P.W.1, which further shows the so-called

incriminating conduct attributed by the petitioner against the

respondent and his family members. She deposed in cross

examination that one day prior to marriage engagement, her

father-in-law telephoned and demanded her father to pay 50%

of the dowry at the time of marriage engagement. It was not

initially accepted by other side and therefore, her father wanted

some time to arrange money. Her father-in-law demanded to

execute a promissory note at the time of marriage engagement

and elders advised him to have faith in such matters, as such,

Ex.A.1 was executed by both sides. So, P.W.1 explained the

circumstances, in which Ex.A.1 was brought into existence being

signed by her father and father-in-law. To this, nothing is

suggested with any contraversion by the respondent. So, the

incriminating things that are elicited at the time of cross

examination of P.W.1 remained uncontraverted. Apart from

this, Ex.A.3 is also the endorsement attributed against her

father-in-law acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,016/- from

her father. Even this is not contraverted at the time of cross

examination. Exs.A.1 and A.3 are well before the marriage.

13) There is evidence of P.W.2, the Pastor to that the

effect that the petitioner and her parents are their Church

Members and father of the respondent approached him for a

prospective girl to perform the marriage of the respondent, as

such, he suggested that petitioner is a suitable girl.

Negotiations took place and on 18.02.2008 engagement function

took place. The agreement was reduced into writing. It was

signed by both parties. Even he was present at the time of

payment of Rs.2,00,016/- by the petitioner's father to the father

of the respondent. During the course of cross examination the

above evidence of P.W.2 on crucial aspects with regard to the

agreement in writing and the subsequent payment of cash by

father of the petitioner to the father of the respondent are not

challenged. There is also evidence of P.W.3, which is similar as

that of the evidence of P.W.2. Apart from that, P.W.3 claimed to

be Church elder, who witnessed the marriage between the

petitioner and respondent. Even regarding the crucial aspects

spoken by P.W.3 as regards the earlier agreement prior to the

marriage and the payment of cash of Rs.2,00,016/- by the

father of the petitioner to the father of the respondent, there

was no challenge. So, it is a case that the evidence of P.Ws.2

and 3 is fully corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 on material

aspects. When P.W.1 explained the circumstances, in which

Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.3 came to be executed attributing some sort of

adamant behavior against the father of the respondent in

insisting to execute a promissory note, etc., relating to the

dowry, no contraversion was suggested during the cross

examination. It is never the case of the respondent that those

documents were not executed by his father. So, the case of the

petitioner has support from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 on

material aspects. R.W.1 in his chief examination affidavit never

tried to explain the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.3. His defence is

that unnecessarily petitioner branded him as impotent person

and there was no fault on his part for obvious reasons. The

respondent did not choose to examine his father in support of

his allegations against the petitioner. When the evidence of

P.W.1 has corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and

further Exs.A.1 and A.3, the evidence of R.W.1 is nothing but

self-serving, which cannot stands to the test of scrutiny.

15) The main contention of the petitioner is that from

the very beginning her father-in-law was so adamant and even

he beat the relatives of the petitioner as well as the petitioner

on the ground that she did not bring additional items, as such,

she was necked out. The petitioner was able to establish the

conduct of the father of the respondent by getting marked

Exs.A.1 and A.3 and she explained the circumstances that too in

cross examination about the manner in which Exs.A.1 and A.3

came to be executed and her evidence in this regard was not at

all challenged during the cross examination. So, her contention

further that as her father did not meet further illegal demands of

the respondent's father, she was necked out from the house,

appears to be convincing.

16) Apart from this, when the petitioner issued a legal

notice to the respondent, respondent did not choose to give any

reply. The contention of the respondent that petitioner branded

him as impotent cannot stands to any reason, as it is elicited

from the evidence that the respondent by working elsewhere

used to come to the house of his parents where the petitioner

was there in the weekends. If the petitioner raised any

allegations of the impotency, etc., against the respondent, he

would not have visited the weekends to the place where the

petitioner was staying i.e., in his parents house.

17) In the counter, the respondent denied routinely the

allegations of demand relating to dowry, etc., but the petitioner

was able to prove place consistent evidence by examining

P.Ws.2 and 3 in support of her allegations and to speak about

the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.3. The respondent did not

venture to dispute all these facts. So, his counter denying the

allegations of dowry, etc., are nothing but incorrect. The

evidence on record goes to reveal that P.W.1 stayed in her in-

laws house for a period of 3 to 4 months at Ramakrishnapur and

by then respondent used to visit her at the weekends. All these

goes to show that the contention of the respondent that

petitioner humiliated him by attributing that he is impotent

cannot stands to any reason.

18) The facts and circumstances are such that the father

of respondent was dominant on the respondent, for which the

respondent did not open up his mouth against his father. That

appears to be root cause for the estrangement between the

parties. In my considered view, the evidence on record quietly

proves that the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner

and the petitioner was unable to maintain herself. It is not the

case of the respondent that the petitioner was of such a person,

who could maintain herself. No such plea was there in the

counter.

19) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner was able to prove before the

Court below that the respondent neglected to maintain her, who

had no means to maintain herself.

20) Coming to the means of the respondent to maintain

the petitioner even according to him, he is getting stipend of

Rs.8,000/- per month and HRA of Rs.2,000/- per month as

Research Fellow in Indian Institute of Chemical Technology,

Tarnaka. He admitted that if he continues for five years, he

would get Rs.15,000/- per month. The neglect was made by the

respondent to maintain the petitioner, who had no sufficient

means. On the other hand, the parents of the petitioner

presented cash and certain items under Exs.A.1 and A.3, which

is not in dispute.

21) Under the circumstances, the respondent, who is

ably bodied and who is having source of income of Rs.10,000/-

per month even as on the date of the petition is bound to

maintain the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court is

of the considered view that the learned Judge, Family Court,

Guntur elaborately appreciated the evidence on record and a

perusal of the order in M.C.No.54 of 2009 goes to reveal that

the reasons furnished by the leaned Judge, Family Court,

Guntur, are quietly sound and probable and the maintenance

that was awarded in favour of the petitioner at Rs.3,600/- per

month is just and reasonable and it is not at all excessive.

22) In the light of the above, this Court is of the

considered view that the impugned order does not suffers with

any illegality, irregularity and impropriety, as such, the Criminal

Revision Case must fail.

23) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 30.11.2022.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2216 OF 2010

Date: 30.11.2022

PGR