Telangana High Court
Enumula Vijaya Laxmi, Medak Dist vs Enumula Raghu Veera Reddy, Ranga Reddy ... on 14 February, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+C.M.A. No.443 OF 2015
% 14-02-2024
# Smt. Enumula Vijaya Laxmi
....Appellant
Vs.
$ Enumula Raghu Veera Reddy
.... Respondent
!Counsel for the appellant : S. Vijay Prashanth
Counsel for the respondent : P. Sriharinath
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2016(4) ALD 584
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
C.M.A. No.443 OF 2015
Between:
Smt. Enumula Vijaya Laxmi
....Appellant
Vs.
Enumula Raghu Veera Reddy
.... Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 14.02.2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
__________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.443 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the
appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior
Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in H.M.O.P. No.6 of 2012, dated
30.03.2015. The petitioner is the wife of the
respondent/husband in the said H.M.O.P.
2. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as
they are arrayed before the Court below.
3. Heard Sri S. Vijay Prashanth, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, and Sri Palle Sri Harinath, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent.
4. The petitioner/wife filed the above H.M.O.P. under Section
13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of
her marriage with the respondent/husband on the ground of
cruelty.
4(1) The specific allegation made by the petitioner against
the respondent is that their marriage was solemnized on
06.05.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of
marriage, the petitioner's parents presented cash of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry, 20 tolas of Gold and half K.G.
Silver on demand made by the respondent. After one month of
their marriage, the respondent's family members started
demanding the petitioner to bring some more money from her
parents to purchase gold bangles and bracelet. The petitioner
expressed her inability to get the said amount her parents.
Thereupon, the petitioner and her mother were insulted by the
respondent and his family members.
4(2) It is further alleged that in the month of December
2007, the mother of the respondent made the petitioner to take
Ayurvedic medicine (Chetulamandu) forcibly, due to which, her
health was badly affected. However, during the month of May
2008, the petitioner became pregnant, but neither the
respondent nor his family members took care of the petitioner.
The respondent used to force the petitioner to have satisfy him
physically like anything (This Court is not inclined to
incorporate the abusive words as they were mentioned in the
petition) though she was pregnant. The respondent used to take
money from her in order to consume alcohol and used to come
to the house in the late nights. The respondent harassed the
petitioner and caused mental and physical agony to her, though
the Doctor advised her to take bed rest on account of
pregnancy. On 13.12.2008, the petitioner was admitted to
Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, due to high blood pressure and
she was kept in ICU for a certain period. The respondent never
cared about the ill-health of the petitioner at any point of time.
Later, the petitioner delivered a female child. The respondent
did not even pay the medical expenses for the petitioner's
treatment. The respondent and his family members refused to
attend the cradle ceremony of the child, which was held in the
month of January 2009.
4(3) It is further alleged that in the month of February
2010, the petitioner once again conceived and scanning report
confirmed twins in the womb. When the petitioner informed
about the same to the respondent, he forced her to undergo an
abortion. As such, she underwent an abortion during the
month of May 2010. The Doctor who attended to the petitioner,
informed the respondent that there should not be physical
contacts for two months to avoid infection, which may lead to
the removal of uterus. But, the respondent forced the petitioner
to have physical contact with him. Consequently, the petitioner
has got severe bleeding by way of clotting.
4(4) The respondent did not even take the petitioner to the
doctor, though she suffered from serious stomach ache. The
respondent used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language to
satisfy him, though she was sick. The respondent even started
suspecting her fidelity. On one occasion during the month of
July, 2011 the respondent beat the petitioner severely and took
away two wheeler vehicle of the brother of the petitioner. She
lodged a complaint with the police against the respondent.
4(5) It is further alleged that on 16.10.2011, during night
time, the respondent made an attempt to take away the
daughter from the custody of the petitioner in a forcible manner
and when the petitioner questioned the behaviour of the
respondent, she was assaulted in a brutal manner. She lodged
another complaint with the police, BDL, Bhanoor, on
17.10.2011 and requested them to provide protection to her and
her daughter. The petitioner and the respondent have been
living separately away from each other since 12.06.2011. The
approach of the respondent towards the petitioner and their
daughter is a sadistic one besides being cruel in nature. She is
unable to tolerate the physical assaults made by the respondent
and also ill-treatment. Hence, the petition.
5. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations
made in the petition and contended that the alleged grounds of
cruelty and ill-treatment were invented by the petitioner to
obtain divorce. The respondent is a financially sound person
and there is no need for him to depend on the income of the
petitioner. He paid Rs.1,30,000/- during cesarean operation of
the petitioner and also spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to
celebrate the first birth day of their daughter. The petitioner left
the conjugal society of the respondent without his knowledge.
She has been living with her mother and brother and not
allowing the respondent to see their daughter. There is no fault
on the part of the respondent, much less the alleged ground of
cruelty. The respondent is ready to accept the petitioner in his
conjugal society even now. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the
petition.
6. To prove the petitioner's case, she was examined as PW.1
and the mediator as PW.2. On behalf of the respondent, he was
examined as RW.1 and another as RW.2. No documents were
exhibited on either side.
7. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Court
below dismissed the petition observing that except the evidence
of PW.1, there was no corroborative evidence by any other
independent evidence.
8. It has been contended by the appellant that the Court
below failed to appreciate the evidence of appellant/PW.1, and
PW.2 clearly corroborated the evidence of PW.1. The Court
below simply ignored the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, and relied
upon the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 and dismissed the O.P.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
contended that the Court below rightly found no evidence on
behalf of the petitioner and rightly dismissed the petition, which
requires no interference from this Court.
10. The trial Court held that admittedly, there is no dispute
about the relationship between the parties and performance of
their marriage on 06.05.2007. The allegations made in the
petition that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the
respondent to fulfill the unlawful demand of payment of
additional dowry and for sexual harassment even when her
health was not cooperating, and as such, they are living
separately away from each other since 12.06.2011. To prove her
case, she herself examined as PW.1 and she reiterated the
contents of the petition. She deposed that on 10.07.2008, she
secured a job in BHEL and she was forced to take quarter
allotted by the employer though she was pregnant and intend to
live at the place of her in-laws. The respondent made her to
attend on all domestic works without engaging any servant
maid. The respondent forced her to have physical contact for
two or three times daily though she was pregnant and did not
allow her to sleep till 2.00 or 3.00 a.m. The respondent did not
consider her health condition with regard to severe stomach
pain and forced her to participate in the physical contact in an
unusual manner. She also deposed that the respondent used to
take money from her for the purpose of purchasing alcohol by
threatening her with dire consequences. She further deposed
that she underwent abortion in the month of May 2010 on
medical advice and therafter she suffered ill-health including
heavy bleeding and during that time also, the respondent forced
her to have physical contact with him and subsequently, the
respondent started suspecting her fidelity and demanded her to
handover FDR worth Rs.1,00,000/- that was made in the name
of their minor daughter and the respondent took an amount of
Rs.10,000/- from her for celebrating the first birth day of their
daughter, but utilized the said amount for purchasing liquor
bottles and she left to her parents' house on account of
untolerable torture and cruelty meted out by the respondent
and she got mediated her matrimonial affair through PW.2, who
advised the respondent to mend his behaviour, but in vain.
In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that
the respondent never demanded the additional dowry from her
parents and that the said ground was created for the purpose of
the petitioner and that she threatened the respondent to commit
suicide if he did not give the consent for abortion and took the
decision to undergo abortion in respect of her second pregnancy
contrary to the medical advice.
11. The petitioner, in support of her case, also examined PW.2,
who is junior paternal uncle of the petitioner and he said to be
one of the mediators. He deposed that he conducted mediations
on two occasions to reconcile the matrimonial affair between the
petitioner and respondent. He further deposed that PW.1
informed him that the respondent used to come to the house by
consuming alcohol and he advised the respondent to mend his
behaviour and advised them to lead conjugal life without any
disputes.
12. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and he deposed
the reiterating the contents of counter. He deposed that there
was no demand of dowry even at the time of marriage or
additional dowry subsequently at any point of time. According
to him, the brother and mother of PW.1 used to visit the
matrimonial home frequently and they developed eyesore on the
salary of PW.1 by expressing the problems one way or the other
in order to take her salary and PW.1 got pledged gold ornaments
to purchase transport vehicle for her brother and she used to
act on the tunes of her mother and brother. He further
deposed that PW.1 has undergone abortion on the advice of her
mother by taking consent from him in a forcible manner and
she also left from the matrimonial home at the instance of her
mother and brother and got vacated the quarter on 22.11.2011
without intimation to him. In the cross-examination, he stated
that they resided together at Dhannaram village for about one
year and later shifted to quarter allotted to PW.1 by the
employer in BHEL township, and that he is not doing any job
though studied ITI course, but earning sufficient income by
doing agriculture.
13. In support of his contention, the respondent also got
examined RW.2 , who is one of the elders to the marriage of the
petitioner and the respondent. RW.2 supported the evidence of
RW.1.
14. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the
Court below observed that the testimony of PW.1 is that on
03.07.2011, the respondent came to her mother's house along
with PW.2 and a panchayath was held at that time and she
informed PW.2 about ill-treatment and harassment meted out
by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the parties have
been living separately since 12.06.2011. In general, no woman,
who is having children, cannot dare to live in isolation without
the security of her husband. In the present case, the petitioner
has gone to the extent of taking divorce from her husband, it
would mean that how much harassment she has undergone by
the ill-treatment of her husband without caring that she would
be belittled in the society as a divorcee.
15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the
respondent illegally married another woman during the
pendency of this appeal and to that effect he has shown the
photograph, but the learned counsel for the respondent did not
agree for the same.
16. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Panati
Madhusudhana Reddy Vs. Maddali Renuka @ Suhasini1
wherein it was held that parties living separately for the past 10
years and their matrimonial bond, beyond salvage, and granting
her a decree of divorce, would enable her to lead a marital life
with another.
17. In the instant case, admittedly, the parties have been
living separately since 12.06.2011 i.e. more than 12 years and
there is no chance of their re-union. Failure to untie the marital
knot, and setting aside judgment and decree of the trial Court in
dismissing the petition of the petitioner for dissolution of her
marriage with the respondent, would only compound the misery
which the wife had undergone during their stay under one roof.
18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the
petitioner/wife is deserved to be allowed by granting decree of
divorce by dissolving her marriage with the respondent, which
was solemnized on 06.05.2007.
2016(4) ALD 584
19. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by
setting aside the order and decree passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Sangareddy, in H.M.O.P. No.6 of 2012, dated
30.03.2015. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
____________________________________________
JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date:14.02.2024
BDR
