Telangana High Court
Kandi Srinivas Goude vs K. Sujatha on 31 January, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.54 of 2012 & 281 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
These appeals are filed by K.Srinivas Goud, husband
against the common order dated 08.08.2011 in O.P.No.862 of
2008 and O.P.No.261 of 2009 passed by learned Family
Court Jude, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Initially, husband filed O.P.No.862 of 2008 for divorce
and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. O.P.No.261
of 2009 was filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal
rights and the same was allowed in the same judgment.
Aggrieved by the said common order, husband filed the
present appeal.
3. He mainly contended that he left the society of the wife
first on 27.02.2005 and then on 14.02.2006, but no steps
were taken by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights
immediately. As on the date of filing the O.P., there was
unlawful desertion of his wife for more than four years, but
the trial Court instead of dissolving the marriage, allowed for
restitution of conjugal rights.
4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that
the trial Court erred in interpreting the word 'cruelty' to mean
that reasonable apprehension of the life threat it would be
harmful injurious for her to live with the husband. O.P.No.39
of 2005, filed by the husband was not dismissed on merits
and was dismissed for default. The trial Court misinterpreted
Ex.R2 and the wife filed criminal case with malafide intention
and the husband's mother was sent to jail and he lost his job
and it amounts to cruelty. After granting restitution of
conjugal rights, no efforts were made by his wife to join his
company. Therefore, requests this Court to set aside the
order passed by the trial Court.
5. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband
and respondent/wife for the sake of convenience.
6. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was
performed on 21.08.2004 and their marriage got registered
on 03.09.2004. The petitioner stated that they married
against the wish of the parents and they were residing
separately in a rented house. During that time, the
respondent never cooperated with the petitioner in routine
household works even to cook food to the petitioner and most
of the time she used to insist the petitioner for shifting the
residence to her parents' house as illetom son-in-law to
which the petitioner denied. The respondent frequently used
to visit her parents house and used to spend most of the days
at her parents' house only. The respondent filed a case in
crime No.213 of 2005 against her husband and mother-in-
law. The respondent forced the petitioner stating that his
mother was very old and suffering with health problems and
to send her to old age home and sell the property so that they
could go to Australia. The petitioner went to Australia and
later he came to know about the birth of a female child
through the respondent. The respondent filed a false
complaint in Cr.No.840/2005 under Section 498-A, under
Section 391) (x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989. He further stated
that the parents of the respondent forced him to give
undertaking on stamp papers.
7. The petitioner filed a writ petition for quash of Crime
No.840 of 2005. The Hon'ble High Court passed stay of
orders in FCA M.P.No.137 of 2012 and it caused much
mental agony to him. The respondent got issued legal notice
for divorce on 02.12.2007 and she did not replied to the
notice and the petitioner stated that he and the respondent
were living separately since June, 2005; as such he filed
O.P.No.862 of 2008 for dissolution of marriage.
8. In the counter filed by the respondent, she denied all
the material allegations except marriage and registration of
the same. She stated that their marriage was performed on
21.08.20004 at Ramalingeswara Temple, Keesaragutta,
Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District and it was registered on
03.09.2004.
9. The petitioner in his counter denied all the allegations
and he denies that he and his family members never
harassed the respondent and never neglected her. He never
registered his name with marriage bureau of "Gouda
Community for his second marriage with a girl of Goud
Community. He left the petitioner's society on 27.02.2005.
10. Petitioner is examined as P.W.1 and filed Exs.P1 to P14.
Respondent is examined as R.W.1 and filed Exs.R1 to R10.
The trial Court considering the oral and documentary
evidence dismissed the O.P. filed for divorce by
petitioner/husband and allowed the O.P. filed by the
respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioner
and respondent were living separately from June 2005 and
stated that petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of
desertion and the trial Court dismissed the O.P.No.39 of 2005
for default filed by the petitioner but the O.P. was not
dismissed on merits and the divorce was sought on the
ground of cruelty and desertion. He further contended that a
criminal case is filed with malafide intention, whereby the
petitioner and his mother was sent to jail, as such the mother
of the petitioner lost her job.
12. Learned counsel for respondent stated that respondent
filed a petition before this Court and later they lived together
for certain period and the petitioner left her society on
14.02.2006. The petitioner promised her to take her to
Australia but did not comply the same and at the instance of
his mother, he was abusing her and also trying to perform
another marriage.
13. The evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 is oath against oath.
There are no other witnesses to substantiate their allegations
and counter allegations. The trial Court relied upon Ex.R2,
letter written by petitioner and respondent and stated that
there is love and affection between the parties and M.C.No.
62 of 2008 filed by the respondent was allowed granting
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to both respondent
and her daughter.
14. Petitioner/husband contended that immediately after
the marriage, the respondent was not doing house hold works
and also misbehaving with his parents. The respondent did
not inform him about the birth of the child, whereas the
respondent stated that she went to her parent's house in the
month of June, 2005 and gave birth to the child in July,
2005 and gave information about the birth of the child to the
petitioner and his mother but neither the petitioner or his
mother turned up to see the child. The respondent paid no
efforts to join him to till date and filed the present appeal in
the year 2013. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent,
she did not turn up. Immediately after the marriage, she
started abusing him and his mother. Because of the
complaint given by the respondent, the petitioner was
compelled to leave the education he was pursuing in
Australia and returned back to India. Thus, he lost further
education and his mother lost her job due to the case filed by
her.
15. The threshold of what constitutes a cruel conduct may
differ between a man and a woman. What is cruelty for a
woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man. The
concept of cruelty differs from person to person
depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity,
financial position, social status, customs, religious beliefs
and value system.
16. The trial Court mainly relied upon Ex.R2 and granted
restitution of conjugal rights as claimed by the respondent.
Though the petitioner married the respondent against the will
of his parents, the respondent did not care about him and he
could not pursue the education and he was made to roam
around the Courts. Therefore, this Court finds that it
amounts to cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife against
the petitioner/husband. The marriage of the petitioner and
husband performed on 21.08.2004 and registered on
03.09.2004 is to be dissolved by way of decree of divorce.
17. In the result, Family Court Appeals are allowed by
setting aside the common order dated 08.08.2011 in
O.P.No.862 of 2008 and O.P.No.261 of 2009 passed by
learned Family Court Jude, Ranga Reddy District, at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 31.01.2024
Chs
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.54 of 2012 & 281 of 2013
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
DATE:31.01.2024
CHS
