Telangana High Court
Chelluboina Veeram Shetty, Hyd vs Smt. C. Parvathi, Hyd And 2 Ots on 3 July, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.283 of 2013
JUDGMENT :
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice SambasivaRao Naidu)
This Family Court Appeal has been preferred by the
unsuccessful husband against his wife and two others under
Section 19 of Family Court Act (for short 'the Act') with a
prayer to set aside the order dated 30-09-2010 in OP.No.535
of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B. Nagar.
2. As could be seen from the grounds of appeal as
well as the order, it appears that this is a second round of
litigation against the same cause of action. The appellant
herein is husband and 1st respondent is his wife. Their
marriage was performed on 08-05-1977 at Venkateswara
Swamy Temple at Chinna Thirupathi, West Godavari District.
It further appears that during 1996, the appellant herein filed
a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act
against the respondent and two others vide OP.No.124 of
1996 and sought for divorce. As per the material averments
2 PSK,J & SSRN, J
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013
made in the said petition, it was his claim that soon after the
marriage, both parties lived together as wife and husband and
at the time of marriage, he was working at Hyderabad. They
resided at Vengalarao Nagar and Vanasthalipuram. Later, he
has constructed a house at Srikrishna Devaraya Nagar and
shifted to his new house. They were blessed with two
children. Later, the 1st respondent started chit fund business
and the appellant herein has claimed that the respondent,
who used to dominate him, started quarreling with him
unnecessarily, and having left his house, she stayed at
Bheemavaram for 3 or 4 months. The appellant having
claimed that the respondent used to quarrel with him and with
his mother, neglected the family life and on other grounds, he
sought for divorce. However, the respondent opposed the
petition. She filed a counter disputing the material allegations
of the petition and the matter was enquired by the learned
II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The
said petition vide OP.No.124 of 1996 was disposed by the trial
Court on 02-08-2000 and the petition filed by the appellant
herein was dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
appellant has filed appeal vide CMA.No.2735 of 2000. At the
3 PSK,J & SSRN, J
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013
time of hearing in the said appeal, the learned counsel for the
appellant has informed the High Court that criminal cases filed
by the respondent vide CC.No.752 of 2005 were disposed by
acquitting him vide judgment dated 03-03-2006. Therefore,
on that ground, the appellant's request for divorce can be
considered. In view of this specific contention, this Court
disposed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with the following
specific order.
"Having considered the submissions made and also on
perusal of the material on record, and especially, in view of the
reasons given by the Court below in the order, the Court below
has no opportunity of considering the aforesaid material and
also as to the effect of proceedings of Section 498-A of IPC.
Now that the proceedings under Section 498-A are already
over and the other material has to be considered. Hence, the
matter requires to be re-considered.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed
and the order dated 02-08-2000 in OP.No.124 of 1996 on the
file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, is set aside and the said OP is remitted back to
the Court below to dispose of the same afresh on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs."
4. In view of the above said order, the petition filed
by the appellant has been again enquired and the learned
Family Court, Ranga Reddy, disposed the petition under the
impugned order and again dismissed the petition holding that
4 PSK,J & SSRN, J
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013
the appellant herein is not able to prove the grounds viz.,
adultery and cruelty.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the
Family Court did not appreciate the additional evidence
produced by him which includes the judgment in CC.No.752 of
2005 which was filed under Section 498-A of IPC and
judgment in CC.No.751 of 2005 dated 13-03-2006 filed for
the offences under Sections 323, 506, 504 and 342 of IPC.
The appellant has claimed both the above referred criminal
cases were ended in acquittal, thereby, it is quite clear that
the respondent herein foisted false cases against him. But
the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence produced
by him through five (5) independent witnesses. The Family
Court failed to appreciate the documentary proof filed by the
appellant herein and failed to appreciate the appellant having
exhausted his patience and vexed with the attitude, came
before the Court with a prayer for divorce but the trial Court
failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence,
thereby, sought for setting aside the judgment and prayed for
divorce.
5 PSK,J & SSRN, J
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013
6. As already stated, the petition filed by the
petitioner vide OP.No.124 of 1996 was filed on the ground of
cruelty and all his contentions which were opposed to by the
respondent were properly answered by the trial Court and his
appeal vide CMA.No.2735 of 2000 was disposed only for
limited purpose of considering the grounds raised by him with
regard to his acquittal in criminal cases.
7. In fact, the record placed before the Court clearly
indicates that those criminal cases were filed by the
respondent subsequent to his filing the divorce petition,
thereby, the same cannot be considered for granting divorce
to the appellant herein. In fact, when the matter was
remanded to the Court below, the learned Judge, Family
Court appreciated all the contentions raised by the appellant
herein and came to a correct conclusion that the appellant
herein could not make out a case for divorce on the ground of
cruelty and adultery.
8. In fact, the appellant while filing the original
petition specifically claimed that the respondent used to
dominate and did not care the family life and sought for
divorce on the ground of cruelty. The subsequent initiation of
criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC or other
6 PSK,J & SSRN, J
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.283 of 2013
penal provisions in view of the subsequent events that taken
place between the couple cannot be considered for deciding
the contentions raised by the appellant nor they can be
accepted as grounds of cruelty. Therefore, absolutely, there
are no grounds for granting divorce to the appellant or to
interfere with the findings recorded by the Family Court in the
impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
__________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date: 03.07.2024
PLV
