Telangana High Court
Madala Chandra Mouli vs Madala Venkata Ramanamma on 14 February, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.152 AND 160 OF 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Lis involved in both the appeals and the parties are one and the
same. Therefore, both the appeals were heard together and decided by
way of this common order.
2. Heard Mr. P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri V.Venkata Mayur learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order
and decree dated 13.10.2011 passed in O.P.No.533 of 2008 and
O.P.No.92 of 2011 by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad,
appellant/husband preferred these two appeals. FCA No.152 of 2012
is filed against the order passed in O.P.No.533 of 2008 filed under
Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on
the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the following grounds:-
i. The marriage of the appellant/husband with the respondent/wife
was solemnized on 24.08.1980 as per Hindu rites and customs.
ii. They blessed with a male child and he was aged about 25 years.
iii. Thereafter disputes arose between them.
iv. The respondent/wife without informing him used to visit her
parental home, when he questions her attitude she used to beat
and abuse him.
v. Whenever his friends or relatives come to the house she used to
pick up quarrel and blame him before them. She also used to
propagate personal matters to neighbours.
vi. She threatened him to commit suicide if he takes her back to
matrimonial home.
vii. The appellant shifted to Secunderabad for business purpose.
After several efforts made by him, she joined him at Hyderabad
but stayed only for two months with him and left his company
without any reasonable cause on 18.05.2001 and did not return.
viii. He made several mediations to bring back her and waited for 6
years.
4. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter denying the
allegations made by the appellant and contended as follows:-
ix. The Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as
they lived in IDPL colony, Adarshnagar. The appellant himself
took and kept in the house at Flat Nos.51, 52, Pratap Reddy
Complex and he paid rents for some time thereafter stopped.
The appellant wrongly shown the address of both the parties.
They both resided together at Bowenpally.
x. They mostly resided together at BHEL, which comes under
Rangareddy District. They lived together at Ongole at about 20
years back.
xi. The appellant addicted to bad vices. He is alchholic, inhuman
and has illegal relation with his brother's wife. She came to
know the same after marriage, thereby he caused mental agony
to her and due to his behavior she is suffering from several
health issues.
xii. She needs company of the appellant. She never threatened him
to commit suicide. Because of his illegal relations, he neglected
her and the child. Even after 2005, he used to meet her secretly,
paid house rent and used to take her to hospital for treatment in
spite of resistance from his brother's wife and he did not allow
her to come to his residence.
5. During the pendency of the above OP, the respondent/wife
filed O.P.No.92 of 2011 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act claiming maintenance against the appellant/husband,
reiterating the averments made by her in her counter in. O.P.No.533 of
200, it is contended by her as follows:-
i. The appellant kept her in a separate house at Chintal.
ii. The appellant maintained illegal relationship with his brother's
wife.
iii. She was suffering from ulcer. Her son was suffering from skin
decease. She has to pay Rs.5,000/- towards house rent.
iv. Her son is unemployee.
v. He stopped to provide her treatment for last three years.
vi. He is possessing crores of properties which includes two plots
in Sainikpuri, two plots in Bahadurpally admeasuring 243, 203
sq.yards, land admeasuring 400sq.yards at Uppuguda, Kapra
which costs around Rs.4 Crores and his family is having lands
in Narrawada village and running business but neglected to
maintain her under the influence of his brother's wife.
vii. He harassed her for purchasing the property at Ongole which
was purchased in the name of his brother who is kartha of the
family and he started doing business with the dowry amount
but filed petition for divorce.
viii. He is not willing to share the property to his son.
ix. She is unable to maintain herself.
x. Two plots were transferred by him in the name of
Venkateshwarlu who is his sister's husband during pendency of
petition. He also tried to transfer other properties in order to
deprive her from claiming maintenance in future.
xi. An amount of Rs.3,000/- was granted towards interim
maintenance to her, but he is not paying the same regularly and
she indebted to maintain herself for paying medical treatment
of ulcer and for her son's treatment and she could not pay
interest on gold loan taken under pledge and failed to take back
her gold ornaments.
6. The appellant filed counter, reiterating the averments made in
O.P.No.533 of 2008 filed by him, on the following grounds:-
i. The respondent/wife left his company in 2001. She filed a
false complaint which is registered as a case in Cr.No.612
of 2009, C.C.No.815 of 2009 and DVC No.33 of 2010.
ii. She filed OP No.92 of 2011 only to harass him.
iii. She left his house and staying with her son who is earning
at Chintal.
iv. She has property at Chirala, therefore, she cannot claim any
maintenance for herself and her son as he became major
and earning member.
v. She took away Rs.3 lakhs worth of gold ornaments from
the house. He purchased plots mentioned in the petition
long back and sold away to various persons to clear the
debts. She has no right to claim joint family property. She
has 10 acres of land at Chirala worth Rs.15 lakhs towards
her share.
vi. No dowry was given at the time of marriage.
vii. She is having sufficient means to maintain herself.
7. During trial before the Family Court, the appellant examined
himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to A.4 documents. Ex.A.1-
wedding card, Ex.A.2-election ID card of the respondent, Ex.A.3-
certified copy of FIR No.61 of 2009 dated 17.09.2009, Jeedimetla
Police Station, Ex.A.4-certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.815 of
2009. On behalf of respondent, she herself examined as R.W.1 and
marked Exs.B-1 to B-13. Ex.B.1 is registered sale deed dated
26.12.1997, Exs.B.2 and B.3 are wedding invitations. Ex.B.4 is legal
notice, dated 18.09.2010, Ex.B.5 is tax returns for the years 2008 to
10, Ex.B.6 is wedding card, Ex.B.7 is receipts of pledging the gold
ornaments, Ex.B.8 is bunch of appellant's medical bills, Ex.B.9 is
encumbrance certificates (two) Ex.B.10 is certified copy of registered
sale deed, dated 12.10.09, Ex. B11 is certified copy of registered sale
deed, Ex.B.12 is certified copy of sale deed dated 12.10.09, Ex.B.13 is
certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.133 of 2006.
8. On consideration of evidence on record, learned Family
Court dismissed O.P.No.533 of 2008 filed by the appellant/husband
and allowed O.P.No.92 of 2011 filed by the respondent/wife awarding
Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife. The
appellant was directed to pay the said maintenance on or before 10th of
every month. In case of default, she is at liberty to execute the order
by due process of law.
9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order
dated 13.10.2011 appellant/husband preferred these two appeals on
the following grounds:-
i. The Family Court failed to consider that the appellant herein
has incurred huge debts and was constrained to sell the property
for clearing the debts.
ii. The Family Court ought to have seen that the respondent
voluntarily left his company without any cause as such she is
not entitled for any maintenance.
iii. Respondent is running a curry point, earning sufficient income
and also having streedhan property. The said aspects were not
considered by the learned Family Court.
iv. The maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month is very high.
v. The Family Court ought to have seen that the respondent left his
company voluntarily without any reasonable cause for a
continuous period of two years which was established by him.
vi. Respondent harassed him frequently leaving to her parents
house without informing him, insulting the appellant before the
friends and relatives. It amounts which amounts to cruelty and
the Family Court did not consider the same.
vii. The respondent filed a complaint against him and his family
members and also filed DVC which shows that the respondent
wants to break down the marriage irretrievably.
viii. The Family Court failed to consider his evidence and decided
the case in favour of the respondent though it has been clearly
stated that she left his company voluntarily.
ix. The Family Court failed to appreciate that for the last 5 years,
they are staying separately without any cohabitation.
x. The Family Court ought to have seen that there was no specific
averment by the respondent that the appellant is under the
influence of the his brother's wife, he put the respondent at
Chintal, paying rents and coming there secretly, which is not at
all there in her chief examination, but the Family Court
concluded that the divorce petition is not maintainable on the
ground of desertion as they have been residing under one roof
till October 2008.
10. There is no dispute that the marriage of the appellant with
the respondent was solemnized on 24.08.1980 as per Hindu rites and
customs. It is an arranged marriage. They blessed with a male child.
He was aged about 29 years as on the date of impugned order and
decree, now he is 41 years.
11. The appellant/husband had filed the aforesaid O.P.No.533
of 2008 against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage
on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. Burden of proving the
said grounds by producing cogent evidence lies on him. The main
allegation of the appellant is that the respondent/wife used to visit her
parents very frequently without even informing him. She used to pick
up quarrel with his friends and relatives whenever they visit to his
house and try to blame him. She used to propagate personal matters to
neighbours. She threatened to commit suicide. He made several
mediations to bring her back and waited for six years. But he failed to
examine any witness to prove the allegations. Mere lodging of a
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, and
filing a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, does
not amount to cruelty.
12. The appellant though made serious allegations that the
respondent insulted him, his family members and relatives and used to
defame them by propagating personal matter to neighbours but he
failed to examine any of the said neighbours to prove the same. He has
also failed to examine any person to prove that she threatened to
commit suicide. On consideration of the said fact, learned Family
Court dismissed the said OP filed by the husband.
13. Learned Family Court also considered that there are petty
issues between the appellant and respondent. The said issues will not
be considered as cruel acts. Even appellant failed to prove the alleged
desertion. Family Court also observed the age of the parties and that
after 31 years of marital life, that wife is very much ready to join him
but refusal of the appellant to take her back to the matrimonial house
is not proper. The appellant failed to produce any acceptable evidence.
14. As discussed supra, the marriage of the appellant with the
respondent was performed on 24.08.1980. They have 41 years old son.
He was 50 years as on the date of filing of O.P. and she was 45 years
as on the date of filing of the O.P. Now he is 65 and she is 60 years.
They have 41 years of son.
15. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, though the
appellant made several allegations including conducting of mediations
etc, he has not examined any witness to prove the same including any
mediator or elder who participated in panchayat/mediation. He
examined himself as P.W.1 and filed only four documents i.e.
wedding card, Election ID card, a copy FIR in Cr.No.612 of 2009 and
a copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.815 of 2009. The same are not
useful to prove the cruelty and desertion grounds. He has to prove the
same by producing cogent evidence.
16. Thus, on consideration of entire evidence both oral and
documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by the
husband seeking dissolution of marriage. It is a reasoned order and
well founded and it does not require interference by this Court.
17. With regard to maintenance, the respondent/wife had
examined herself as R.W.1 and she has filed Exs.B.1 to B.13
documents including Ex.B.5 Tax Returns for the year 2008 to 2010.
She has also filed Ex.B.9- encumbrance certificate, Ex.B.10- a copy of
registered sale deed, Ex. B.11 C.C. of registered sale deed and
Ex.B.12 CC of sale deed 12.10.2009.
18. According to her, appellant is having earning capacity and
sufficient means of income. Therefore, she sought an amount of
Rs.17,000/- per month towards her maintenance. However, on
consideration of evidence, learned Family Court granted an amount of
Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent/wife.
Learned Family Court directed the appellant/husband to pay the said
amount on or before 10th of every month. Therefore, it is a reasoned
order. There is no error in it.
19. It is apt to note that the appellant herein raised jurisdiction
issue. On examination of the facts, learned Family Court, in paragraph
No.15 gave a specific finding that it has jurisdiction. The appellant
herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said finding.
20. The appellant also raised another ground that the sister of
respondent had filed a suit vide O.S.No.133 of 2006 making certain
allegations against the respondent. The said suit is with regard to
property. The Family Court gave a specific finding in paragraph
Nos.19 and 20 of the judgment that mere filing of the said suit with
regard to the properties by the respondent/wife, cannot be attributed
any mala fides to her. It is only a suit for cancellation of gift deed
executed by her father. Therefore, it is not useful. Thus, the impugned
order is a reasoned order. It does not require any interference by this
Court. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals are
dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
these appeals shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Date:14.02.2024
VVR
