Telangana High Court
Gundepogu Jagath Joythi vs Smt. Samuel Fathima Chinnappa on 5 December, 2023
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.6 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)
Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order and decree dated
28.07.2011 in F.C.O.P.No.224 of 2009 passed by the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Warangal.
3. The appellant/husband had filed the aforesaid
F.C.O.P.No.224 of 2009 against the respondent/wife under
Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 seeking dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty. According to the averments
in the said FCOP, the marriage of the appellant with the
respondent was performed on 16.05.1990 as per Christian
rights and customs. It was an arranged marriage. They were
blessed with two children i.e., Udaya Jyothi born on 04.06.1991
and Suchendrapal Raj born on 17.10.1993. Thereafter, disputes
arose between them.
4. According to the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife
used to consume alcohol, and in the said process, she used to
move with all the people ignoring her conjugal obligations and
matrimonial life. The respondent/wife, being an employee, used
to spend her salary for her expenses to beauty parlours, pubs
and also used to move in the cars with others. Under the
pretext of her employment, she used to move with the persons of
her choice in whom she was interested. On one day, under the
pretext of enquiry before the High Court, she left to Hyderabad
from Warangal and returned to Warangal in the next day
morning at 5.00 a.m., with one Narsaiah, who is her colleague.
She used to go tours alone every year with her colleagues for
about 8 to 10 days. According to the appellant/husband, the
said acts of the respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty.
5. To prove the ground of cruelty, the appellant/husband
examined himself as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-4, including
Ex.A-4, agreement dated 22.09.1991. To disprove the said
ground, the respondent/wife examined herself as R.W.1, her
daughter as R.W.2 and neighbour as R.W.3 and filed Exs.B-1 to
B-4, including Ex.B-2, letter of undertaking.
6. A perusal of the record would reveal that the
respondent/wife and her two children filed a petition under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., vide M.C.No.21 of 2008 and the same
was ordered. In the agreement dated 22.09.1991 (Ex.A-4),
certain issues between the appellant and the respondent were
mentioned vide Ex.B-2, letter of undertaking. Under Ex.B-2, the
appellant/husband undertook that he will not beat the
respondent/wife.
7. On consideration of entire evidence both oral and
documentary, the trial Court gave a specific finding that though
the appellant/husband levelled several allegations against the
respondent/wife, he failed to prove the same and also failed to
produce cogent evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed
the FCOP.
8. As discussed supra, though the appellant/husband made
certain serious allegations against the respondent/wife, he failed
to prove the same by examining any witness. According to him,
the respondent/wife left for Hyderabad and came to Warangal in
the next day morning along with one Narsaiah, but he has not
made said Narsaiah as party to the FCOP. He has not made any
allegation against the respondent/wife that she is leading
adulterous life. On flimsy grounds, the appellant/husband
cannot seek decree of divorce. Filing an application by the
respondent/wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the
children does not constitute cruelty.
9. As discussed supra, under Ex.B-2, letter of undertaking,
the appellant/husband undertook that he will not further beat
and subject the respondent/wife to cruelty. Apart from the
same, the appellant/husband failed to prove the ground of
cruelty by producing cogent evidence. On consideration of the
said facts only, vide impugned order dated 28.07.2011, the trial
Court dismissed the FCOP filed by the appellant/husband. It is
a reasoned and well founded order and does not require any
interference by this Court in the present appeal. Therefore, the
present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order
and decree dated 28.07.2011 in F.C.O.P.No.224 of 2009 passed
by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Warangal. There
shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.LAKSHMAN, J
__________________________________
SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA, J
Date: 05.12.2023
TJMR
