Kusangi Saritha vs Kusangi Srikanth Goud
2021 Latest Caselaw 1523 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                     AND
          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                 Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020
                                    in/and
               Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.751 of 2014


JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)


       This Appeal is preferred against the order dt.10-06-2014 in

O.P.No.18 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak.


2.     The appellant herein is respondent in O.P.No.18 of 2013.

3. The appellant and respondent had got married on 24-05-2002 in

Medak Town, Medak District as per Hindu rites and customs. They were

blessed with two female children and one male child, who were aged 11,

8 and 7 years respectively at the time of filing of the O.P. in April, 2013.

4. The respondent is employed as School Assistant in Upper Primary

School, Atchampeta, Velldurthi Mandal, Medak District.

CASE OF THE RESPODNENT/HUSBAND IN THE O.P.

5. The respondent/husband alleged in the O.P. that after the birth of

male child, on the ill-advise of her parents, the appellant used to go to

her parents' house without intimation and prior permission of the

respondent twice in a week, and had voluntarily left his company and

went away leaving the children; that many times he had to go to her

parents' house and bring her back and had advised her not to go to her

parents' house by leaving children, but she did not care for his words.

                                    ::2::                            MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                              C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

6. He alleged that during her stay with the respondent, the appellant

did not look after the respondent and did not serve his parents and always

quarreled with the respondent and her in-laws for petty reasons.

7. He contended that she left his house in July, 2011 on account of

differences between herself and respondent by leaving the children

without information and prior permission of the respondent, and since

then she has been residing with her parents.

8. He alleged that though he and his parents went to the appellants

requesting her to join his company, she bluntly refused the said request

made by the respondent and the parents of the appellant beat the father of

the respondent mercilessly. He alleged that the appellant has no love and

affection towards her children or towards and respondent, and he is

taking care of the children and also getting them educated.

9. He contended that the appellant filed a criminal case in

Cr.No.02/2012 under Section 498-A I.P.C. against respondent, his

parents, sister and brother-in-law in January, 2012 apart from a Domestic

Violence case.

10. He alleged that his sister's marriage had been performed prior to

the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and his sister is living

with her husband separately far away from the respondent, and in spite of

the same, the appellant had falsely implicated them in the criminal case

filed by her under Section 498-A I.P.C. He alleged that his brother-in-

law is working as an employee in Postal Department and due to

registration of criminal case, his superiors had suspended him from job.

                                    ::3::                         MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                           C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

He also stated that on account of registration of criminal complaint

against himself, his superiors also suspended him from his job. He

alleged that the only intention of the appellant in filing the criminal

complaint was to harass and humiliate the respondent and his relatives.

11. He contended that in the month of March, 2013, the father and

brother of the appellant threatened the respondent that they will kill him

in 8 days and so he lodged a complaint before SHO Chanda Nagar and

police registered a case against the father and brother of the appellant

under Section 507 I.P.C. in Cr.No.200/2013.

12. According to him, since July, 2011, there is no matrimonial

relationship between the appellant and respondent and there was no

chance of reunion between them.

CASE OF THE APPELLANT /WIFE IN THE O.P.

13. The appellant filed a counter in the O.P. denying these allegations.

14. She denied that after the birth of the male child, on the advice of

her parents she voluntarily left the company of respondent by leaving the

children and went away to her parents house. She also denied that during

her stay at respondent's house, she never looked after the respondent

properly and did not do any service to his parents and always used to

quarrel with the respondent and his parents. She denied leaving the house

of respondent in July, 2011 without information and prior permission of

respondent and that since then she was residing with her parents.

                                    ::4::                            MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                              C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

15. She admitted that she filed a criminal case in Cr.No.02/2012 under

Section 498-A I.P.C. against respondent and his relatives, but denied that

the sister of the respondent was living separately and away from the

respondent, and that they never resided with the appellant.

16. She admitted that the brother-in-law of the respondent was

working as an employee in the Postal Department, but it was not within

her personal knowledge that due to filing of the criminal complaint, the

superiors of the brother-in-law of respondent had suspended him from his

job. She also denied that in the month of March, 2013, her father and

brother threatened the respondent that they would kill him in 8 days. She

alleged that the complaint filed against her father and brother by

respondent in Cr.No.200 of 2013 under Section 507 I.P.C. was a false

one.

17. She alleged that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave

dowry of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent; after the birth of the second

daughter, the respondent started insisting for execution of a sale deed of

an open plot of extent 200 sq. yds in Medak Town and also insisted to

bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents.

18. She alleged that as per the demand of respondent, her parents gave

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent towards additional dowry, but the

respondent and his parents were not satisfied with the said amount and

they along with the married sister and brother-in-law of respondent,

harassed the appellant. She stated that after the birth of the son, the ::5:: MSRJ & TVKJ C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

respondent and his family members continued the harassment and necked

her out of the house.

19. She contended that many panchayats were held in the presence of

caste elders and village elders and they also advised the respondent and

his family members to live happy marital life with the appellant and not

to harass her, but they did not heed to such advice.

20. She contended that the sister of the respondent used to instigate the

respondent to harass her and that the sister of the respondent intended to

perform the marriage of the respondent with her friend's daughter for

second time, which was not acceptable to her.

21. She contended that on account of dowry harassment and domestic

violence, she filed criminal complaint and also sought maintenance, and

respondent had deserted her and deprived her of the company of her three

children and did not allow her to see her children. She stated that she was

ready to lead matrimonial life with the respondent if he is ready to take

her back into the matrimonial home.

22. In the Court below, the respondent examined two witnesses and the

appellant examined three witnesses. Neither party marked any

documents.

ORDER DT.10-06-2014 IN O.P.No.18 of 2013

23. The Court below allowed the O.P. and dissolved the marriage

between the parties by order dt.10-6-2014.

                                      ::6::                         MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                             C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

24. In its order, the Court below had relied upon the evidence of the

respondent as P.W.1 that the appellant had left his company in the month

of July, 2011 and she did not look after the respondent and his parents

and she used to quarrel with him for petty reasons. It also referred to the

counter-affidavit filed by the appellant in the O.P and held that the

appellant had admitted in the said counter-affidavit that she did not look

after the respondent properly and that she never rendered service to the

parents of respondent and used to quarrel with them on petty issues.

25. It also referred to the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that himself

and respondent had gone to the village of appellant and requested her to

join the company of respondent, but she bluntly refused the request; that

the 3 children are with the respondent and he was taking care of their

needs.

26. It then referred to the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 that dowry had been

paid to the respondent, and after the birth of the second daughter, the

respondent was insisting the appellant to execute sale deed in respect of

an open plot admeasuring 220 sq. yds and also to bring additional dowry

of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the appellant's parents gave Rs.50,000/-.

27. It held that no documents are placed before the Court in respect of

the plot, in respect of which the appellant had alleged that there was a

demand by respondent to register it in his name, and that none of the

witnesses, who spoke on behalf of appellant, had stated that the said plot

was given to the appellant by her parents. It therefore concluded that the

parents of the appellant were not at all concerned with the plot and that it ::7:: MSRJ & TVKJ C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

was not even the case of the appellant that the plot was purchased by her.

It then concluded that respondent, being a Government Teacher, had

sufficient means and he might have purchased it in the name of the

appellant and that even it is considered that the respondent insisted to

execute the sale deed, it cannot be said that there is harassment.

28. It also held that there is no evidence of any payment of dowry by

the parents of appellant to the respondent or that subsequently they gave

Rs.50,000/-. It observed that merely because the appellant lodged

complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. it does not mean that respondent

and his relatives have harassed the appellant for additional dowry.

29. The Court below further held that there is no evidence to show that

the appellant made efforts to look after the children and no prudent

mother would stay away from her children without looking after them. It

also rejected the plea of the appellant that respondent was not allowing

her to see the children by stating that if the said allegation was to be true,

the appellant ought to have approached the competent Court for custody

of the children, but she did not do so.

30. The Court below then referred to the suggestions made by the

counsel for appellant to respondent about the character of respondent i.e

the alleged harassment of a lady teacher in Kondapaka by respondent,

that the respondent was assaulted in connection with the same, that he

had insisted that the appellant should die so that he could marry the friend

of his sister, and that he insisted that his colleague lady Teacher should

marry him and a case was registered against him for that purpose.

                                    ::8::                         MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                           C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

31. It observed that the respondent had categorically denied these

suggestions and they had not been mentioned in the counter-affidavit

filed by appellant, that no witness had been examined and no

documentary evidence had been filed by appellant in support of these

contentions.

32. It therefore held that since the respondent was a Teacher, making

such allegations against him would affect his character and cause him

mental agony.

33. It also observed that though the appellant stated that she was ready

to lead matrimonial life with respondent, she never made any efforts to

join the respondent and tried to see the children and the said plea was

raised only for the purpose of the case. It also held that on account of

filing criminal case under Section 498-A I.P.C. and also under the

Domestic Violence Act apart from the Maintenance Case, the respondent

and his brother-in-law were both suspended from their respective jobs

and the relationship between the parties was strained.

34. It thus allowed the O.P.

35. Assailing the same, this Appeal has been filed.

CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT

36. An interim order dt.02-03-2015 was passed in

C.M.A.M.P.No.1152 of 2014 in C.M.A.No.751 of 2014 by this court

staying the order and decree passed by the court below in the O.P.

                                    ::9::                          MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                            C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

37. The respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 to vacate the interim order

dt.02-03-2015 passed in C.M.A.M.P.No.1152 of 2014 in C.M.A.No.751

of 2014 enclosing copy of the order dt.24-03-2014 in M.C.No.02 of 2012

passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Medak, order

dt.04-06-2014 in D.V.C.No.02 of 2012 passed by the said Court and

judgment dt.30-11-2015 in C.C.No.36 of 2012 passed by the same Court

acquitting the respondent and his family members of offence under

Section 498-A I.P.C.

38. Though learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose the

receipt of these documents, since these have bearing on the case, and they

are orders passed inter-parties after the O.P. was filed, the said objection

is over ruled and they are received in the Appeal.

39. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri

M.Srikanth, learned counsel for respondent.

40. Firstly, we may point out that there is a specific allegation by the

respondent against appellant that she filed the criminal complaint under

Section 498-A I.P.C. against himself and his parents, sister and brother-

in-law, and as a consequence thereof, both he and his brother-in-law

( who was working as an employee in Postal Department) had been

suspended and that this caused much harassment and humiliation to them.

41. In response thereto, the appellant stated that it was not within her

knowledge that the brother-in-law of respondent, who is working as an

employee in Postal Department, got suspended from his job. She did not ::10:: MSRJ & TVKJ C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

even bother to deny that respondent was also suspended from his job on

account of lodging of criminal case by her against him and his relatives.

42. The judgment dt.30-11-2015 in C.C.No.36 of 2012 placed on

record shows that respondent, his parents, sister and brother-in-law, who

were accused by the appellant of harassing her for dowry under Section

498-A I.P.C., had been acquitted by the criminal Court.

43. In Viswanath Agarwal Vs. Sarla Viswanath Agarwal1, the

Supreme Court considered the effect of an acquittal in a criminal

complaint lodged under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the husband and in-

laws by a woman, and held that the allegations of demand of dowry

would therefore have to be held incorrect and untruthful and filing of

such complaint would certainly create mental trauma in the mind of the

husband.

44. Similar view has been taken in Malathi Ravi Vs. B.V.Ravi2,

wherein the Supreme Court held that the husband would have a reason to

feel that he has been humiliated if allegations been made against him are

incorrect and his relatives have been dragged into matrimonial

controversy and criminal case initiated against him and his relatives has

been ended in acquittal; that it would only indicate bitterness and an

inference can be drawn that the husband has been treated with mental

cruelty.

    (2012) 7 SCC 288

    (2014) 7 SCC 640
                                    ::11::                         MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                            C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

45. That apart, the suggestions given to the respondent by the

appellant's counsel during the course of evidence that he had harassed a

lady Teacher and he wanted to marry another lady Teacher, clearly cast

aspersions on his character and the said allegations were also not proved

by the appellant. Such conduct would clearly amount to causing mental

cruelty to the husband by the wife.

46. That apart, there is nothing to show that the appellant or her

parents own a plot of 220 sq. yds in Medak District which the respondent

is alleged to have demanded byway of transfer in his name.

47. It is not the case of the appellant that she had made any effort to

join the company of the respondent or tried to see the children or tried to

obtain the custody of children.

48. However, we do not agree with the finding of the Court below that

the appellant had admitted in the counter-affidavit that she never looked

after the respondent properly or rendered service to his parents or that she

used to quarrel with them on petty issues. We wish to state that the

sentence referring to this aspect is a continuation of previous sentences

which began with denial of the allegations against her in the O.P., and the

Court below made a mistake in treating it as an admission of her guilt.

We therefore hold that there was no admission of guilt by the appellant

that she never looked after the respondent properly or rendered service to

his parents or that she used to quarrel with them on petty issues.

                                   ::12::                         MSRJ & TVKJ
                                                           C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

49. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Court below

in so far as it dissolved the marriage between the parties does not warrant

any interference by this Court.

50. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently I.A.No.1 of

2020 is allowed.

51. However, since the aspect of permanent alimony has not been dealt

with by the Court below, we propose to consider the said aspect.

52. Admittedly, the respondent is working as a School Assistant in

Z.P.High School, Masaipet and is drawing monthly gross salary of

Rs.70,047/- in March, 2021.

53. A memo was filed by the respondent stating that he is drawing

gross salary of Rs.70,047/- p.m. working as School Assistant in Z.P.High

School, Masaipet and that he is spending Rs.40,000/- p.a towards tuition

fee for the eldest daughter, who is studying B.Sc. I year at St. Frances

Degree College, Begumpet, Rs.30,000/- p.a. towards tuition fee for the

second daughter who is studying 10th class and Rs.25,000/- p.a. towards

tuition fee for the son who is studying Class-IX in Viswa Vidyalaya High

School, Chanda Nagar. He also stated that he was residing in rented

house paying monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- in Chanda Nagar for the

education of his children, and his total expenditure per month is

Rs.25,000/- excluding children's schools fees and tuition fees and he is

also taking care of his aged parents aged 75 years and 65 years

respectively and taking care of their medical expenses. He also stated ::13:: MSRJ & TVKJ C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

that his father had constructed a house at Medak valuing Rs.35.00 lakhs

as on date.

54. No doubt the respondent has to bring up his three children, get

them educated and also to perform the marriages of two daughters. Apart

from these responsibilities, he has to take care of his aged parents who

are said to be aged 75 and 65 years respectively.

55. But the respondent is aged 44 years as on date and has still 17

years of Government service. On the other hand, the appellant is

depending on her parents and is living with them in the village.

56. Learned counsel for appellant stated that respondent owns three

storied house in Medak and that at least Rs.15.00 lakhs should be

awarded towards permanent alimony to the appellant.

57. However, no material has been placed by appellant before this

Court to prove that respondent owns a three storied house in Medak.

58. Having regard to the financial position of the respondent and his

responsibilities regarding his parents and children, we are of the opinion

that interests of justice would be served if the respondent pays to the

appellant a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Fifty thousand

only) towards permanent alimony within two (02) months.

59. On payment thereof, the appellant would not be entitled to claim

the amounts of maintenance which have been fixed in M.C.No.02 of

2012 and D.V.C.No.02 of 202 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Medak. Till such payment is made, the respondent shall comply with the ::14:: MSRJ & TVKJ C.M.A.No.751 of 2014

orders passed M.C.No.02 of 2012 and D.V.C.No.02 of 202 by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medak. No costs.

60. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

___________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 02-06-2021 Vsv