Naroju Jhansi Rani vs Naroju Sreedhar
2023 Latest Caselaw 268 Tel

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                      AND
  THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    F.C.A.No.56 OF 2019
                            AND
                    F.C.A.No.58 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

1.        The   appellant   in   F.C.A.No.56    of   2019   and

F.C.A.No.58 of 2019 is the wife and the respondent being

her husband. The appellant filed a petition for restitution

of conjugal rights vide F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2015 which stood

pending before the Family Court, Nizamabad. The

respondent, seeking nullity of marriage, filed F.C.O.P.No.62

of 2015 and the said case also stood pending before the

same Court. The Family Court, Nizamabad, through a

common order dated 31.12.2018, negatived the relief

claimed by the appellant-wife i.e., for restitution of conjugal

rights. The Court granted the relief sought for by the

respondent-husband and consequently annulled the

marriage between the parties by a decree of nullity.

Aggrieved by the same, the wife preferred both these

appeals.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

2. Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the

appellant as well as Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior

counsel who argued on behalf of Sri M.Ravinder Reddy,

learned counsel on record for the respondent.

3. Gone through the pleadings of parties in both the

cases; the common evidence recorded i.e. the evidence of

PWs 1 & 2, RWs1 to 5 and also perused the contents of

Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.B1 to B8.

4. The fact that the marriage of the appellant was

performed with the respondent as per Hindu rites and

customs on 15.08.2014 is not in dispute. When the

appellant contended that dowry was given and some other

amounts were paid for purchase of clothes, household

articles, etc., the respondent denied the same. The fact

that after marriage, a marriage reception ceremony was

hosted by the father of the respondent at Hyderabad is not

in dispute. Likewise, neither the educational qualification

of the parties nor their avocation is in serious dispute.

Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant left the

matrimonial home on 23.08.2014. While the appellant

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

states that the respondent, at the instance of his father

and sisters, sent her out, the version of the respondent is

that though after marriage, nuptial ceremony was arranged

on the night of 21.08.2014, the appellant did not cooperate

and due to her refusal, the marriage was not

consummated. The nuptial ceremony was postponed to

the next day i.e. on 22.08.2014. But on 22.08.2014, the

father of the respondent received an e-mail that the

appellant married another person prior to marriage with

respondent and the said mail contained two attachments

i.e. photographs which shows that she was wearing yellow

thread and further, the father of the respondent also

received a phone call from one Srinivas who informed that

he had already married the appellant and that he himself

sent the mail and the photographs and also that they were

in love for about seven years. It is also the case of the

respondent that the said Srinivas is the cousin of the

appellant i.e. son of the younger sister of her mother. On

coming to know about the said fact, the parents of the

appellant were informed.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

5. The fact that the appellant gave complaint to police

against the said Srinivas and also filed a civil suit for

damages is also borne by record. By the material available

on record, it is also clear that the respondent took steps to

verify about the genuineness of the photographs by getting

them subjected to forensic analysis. Also, the person who

analyzed the photographs was examined as RW5 and the

report issued was also got marked.

6. The main point urged and argued by the learned

counsel for the appellant is that the marriage of Hindu

male with Hindu female becomes complete and valid only

after the performance of relevant ceremonies and thus,

mere presence of a yellow thread around the neck of the

appellant does not mean that she had undergone valid

marriage. Learned counsel also stated that in case the

appellant really married the alleged Srinivas, she would not

have given complaint to police against him and filed a suit

for damages and that itself goes to show that the appellant

is innocent. But the said fact was not taken into

consideration by the Family Court. Learned counsel also

submitted that the appellant was sent out from her

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

matrimonial home basing on a mere suspicion and

thereafter, basing on the same suspicion, respondent filed

an OP seeking for nullity of marriage and indeed, the

appellant intends to lead happy marital life with the

respondent and therefore, she filed an OP for restitution of

conjugal rights. Learned counsel stated that instead of

decreeing the O.P. filed by the appellant and thereby

ordering for restitution of conjugal rights, the Family Court

annulled the marriage which is highly unjustifiable.

Learned counsel, during the course of submission, also

stated that Rules of Evidence were not followed and the

Family Court failed to verify whether the electronic material

produced is a primary evidence or secondary evidence and

did not adhere to insisting of required certification under

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and thereby came

to a wrong conclusion. Learned counsel, by submitting

thus, sought to allow both the appeals.

7. Contradicting the submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the

respondent contended that the appellant was not

interested in marrying the respondent from the beginning.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

Learned counsel stated that though the marriage was

performed, the appellant refused to lead matrimonial life

with the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that no

reason was accorded by the appellant either in her

pleadings or in her evidence as to why she refused for

consummation of marriage. Learned counsel stated that

the appellant fell in love with the son of her maternal aunt

by name Srinivas and both continued their love affair for a

period of about seven years and on one fine day, they went

to a temple and got married. But, as the said relationship

is a prohibited one under the customs prevailing in Hindu

community, both of them did not disclose the same.

Learned counsel submitted that the parents and elders of

the appellant who were not aware of the existence of such

relationship and marriage, proceeded with choosing an

appropriate alliance and getting her married and thereby,

the marriage with the respondent was performed. But, as

the appellant had an affair with the said Srinivas, she

could not give consent for consummation of marriage.

8. Learned counsel also stated that the appellant, who

examined herself as PW1, clearly admitted that the

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

photographs produced before the Court depicts her

presence and it is she, who is present therein and

therefore, no further certification or proof is required to

establish the genuineness of the said photographs.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant only denied

the presence of yellow thread around her neck. But the

said fact was established by the evidence of RW5, who

analysed the said photographs. Learned counsel stated

that the evidence of the analyst and the report of the

analyst clearly goes to show that the said yellow thread was

not introduced or morphed thereafter and therefore, it has

to be held that there was a valid marriage between the

appellant and the said Srinivas. Learned counsel also

submitted that the appellant, being a person who attained

the age of majority, who had higher studies i.e. M.Sc

(Mathematics) and Law Degree and who worked as Part-

time lecturer, ought to have been visualized the

consequences of marrying again during the life time of her

spouse. Learned counsel also stated that having evaluated

all the evidence that was brought on record by both the

parties, the Family Court came to a just conclusion.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent, who

had many hopes of leading happy marital life, had his

dreams shattered to the acts of the appellant and observing

all those factors, the Family Court rightly annulled the

marriage by a decree of nullity which needs no

interference.

9. The appellant, who in her pleadings and during her

chief examination, contended that lot of amount was paid

towards dowry and towards other expenses by her parents,

during the course of cross-examination admitted that her

parents- in- law paid double the amount to her for

purchase of her clothes than the amount paid to the

respondent by them. She further admitted that there is no

dispute with regard to dowry. She further admitted that

the respondent never approached her elders demanding

dowry. Likewise, the appellant, who stated that she was

sent away from her house by the respondent and his family

members, during the course of cross-examination, clearly

deposed that on 23.08.2014, her parents were called to the

house of the respondent by the father of the respondent

and sent her along with her parents. Coming to the

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

disputed photographs, she, during the course of cross-

examination, admitted that the photographs confronted to

her, are the photographs sent by Srinivas to her father-in-

law to his email. She further admitted that the dress, the

face and spectacles present in the photographs belongs to

her. She further admitted that those photographs belong

to her. She volunteered that the yellow thread with piece of

turmeric is created around her neck in those photographs.

She, however, stated that those photographs were taken at

Pochamma Temple at Nizamabad one month prior to her

marriage. She also stated that those photographs were

taken by Srinivas. She further deposed that herself and

Srinivas went to Pochamma temple on the date of taking

photographs. She also stated that the said photographs

were taken through the tab of Srinivas. All these facts

clearly goes to show that the appellant, along with the said

Srinivas, went to Pochamma temple, Nizamabad one month

prior to marriage and the photographs that were produced

before the Court, were taken by Srinivas. The appellant is

well aware about the date on which those photographs

were taken and also who had taken those photographs.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

Taking of photographs and her presence thus is admitted

by the appellant. Her only contention is that the yellow

thread with a piece of turmeric that is found in the

photographs around her neck was created. The said

contention is disproved by the respondent by producing

cogent and convincing material.

10. The evidence of RW5 is that he is working as Deputy

Director at Truth Labs, Bangalore. He stated that

Mr.N.P.Chary (RW2-Father of the respondent) approached

Truth Labs, Hyderabad with a CD requesting for

examination of two images contained therein and the case

was registered at their office and it was allotted to him for

examination. The case file and the CD were received at

their Bangalore office. The CD contained two relevant

images which were marked as Q1 and Q2 by him and he

examined them by means of file signature analysis and

photo image authentication techniques and on

examination, he is of the opinion that the images i.e. Q1

and Q2 are authentic and are free from any form of

tampering, morphing or insertions. He stated that Ex.B5 is

the report issued by him after completion of his analysis.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

Though RW5 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing

could be elicited through him to discredit his testimony. A

perusal of the contents of the report goes to show that the

images Q1 and Q2 were shot using Lenovo A3000H

camera. The report also states that the images Q1 & Q2

contained in the CD are authentic and represent true

images recorded in an event truly occurred. It is also

mentioned that the pixel level analysis of Q1 & Q2 images

do not indicate any pixel manipulation or abrupt changes.

It is further mentioned that the pixels of

Mangalasutra/yellow thread merges with the pixels of the

female person indicating that it was present at the time of

photographing. The report also reveals that the file

signatures of the images Q1 & Q2 do not indicate the use

of image editing software indicating that those images are

authentic and have not been created using image

manipulation techniques.

11. Thus, the respondent, through all the evidence he

produced, had clearly established that the appellant was

wearing an yellow thread embedded with a turmeric piece

and the same was photographed by the said Srinivas.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

Also, it is not in dispute that the said Srinivas had indeed

passed information to the father of the respondent. Had it

not been so, the appellant might not have given complaint

against the said Srinivas and filed a suit for damages.

When the respondent had produced such an overwhelming

evidence alleging that the appellant had got married, it is

incumbent atleast on part of the appellant to state as to

why she was present along with the said Srinivas at the

alleged temple, that too, wearing an yellow thread

containing a piece of turmeric depicting Tali. Admittedly,

strict rules of evidence are not ordered to be followed by the

Family Court. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act says

that Rules of Evidence need not be strictly adhered to and

that the Family Court can adopt its own procedure for

culling out the truth and for deciding the matter on merits.

12. In the case on hand, we are of the opinion that

having considered all the evidence that is produced by both

sides, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nizamabad,

had come to a just conclusion that the appellant, who is at

fault, is not entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal

rights. On the other hand, the respondent-husband who

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

had establsihed that the case falls under the ambit of

Section 5 read with Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act is

entitled to get the marriage annulled. We fail to find any

ground for interfering with the well reasoned order of the

Family Court, Nizamabad.

13. Thus, having discussed the merits of the case at

length, we are of the opinion that both the appeals lacks

merits and deserves dismissal.

14. Resultantly, both the Appeals stand dismissed.

Consequently, the common order of the Family Court,

Nizamabad, passed in F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2015 and

F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2015, dated 31.12.2018, is confirmed.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.20.01.2023 ysk

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J FCA.Nos.56 & 58 of 2019

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

F.C.A.No.56 OF 2019 AND F.C.A.No.58 OF 2019

Dt.20.01.2023 ysk