Telangana High Court
Moola Premchand vs Smt. Moola Manasa on 8 July, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
C.M.A. No.517 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri D.Nagabushanam for the appellant and Sri P. Sravan Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The appeal arises out of an order dated 30.08.2022 passed
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal rejecting
the petition filed by the appellant/husband against the
respondent/wife under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of divorce, that is, on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion.
3. Counsel appearing for the appellant (petitioner before the
Trial Court) submits that the appellant was subjected to cruelty
by reason of the allegations made by the respondent against the
appellant including aspersions against the appellant's moral
character. Counsel submits that the respondent has been living
apart from the appellant since 04.11.2013 and has deserted the
appellant for the purpose of Section 13 (1)(i-b) of the Act.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondent seeks to support the
impugned order by urging that the appellant was unable to make
out any ground of cruelty against the respondent and that the
respondent intends to reconcile with the appellant and renew
their marital ties. Counsel further submits that the respondent
has a child and hence the respondent needs security of the
appellant's presence. It is also submitted that the appellant is not
paying the agreed amount of maintenance to the respondent.
5. The admitted facts are that the appellant and the
respondent were married on 29.11.2009 at Narsampet as per their
respective caste customs. The appellant later came to Hyderabad
for work and the respondent joined him. The respondent used to
visit hospitals as well as psychological and mental health set-ups.
The respondent gave birth to a daughter on 28.11.2010. A
panchayat was held at Kamaram Village on 28.11.2011 between
the appellant and the respondent as well as their respective
families. Several other panchayats were held for reconciliation of
the parties including on 20.09.2013. The respondent made several
allegations against the appellant. The respondent fought with the
appellant on 04.11.2013 and complained to her parents of assault
and abuse committed by the appellant in a drunken state. The
Narsampet Police, conducted counselling and advised the
respondent to get herself treated for mental illness. The appellant
took the respondent to a psychotherapist at a Specialty Hospital,
Kothawada, Warangal, but the respondent refused to undergo
treatment.
6. The above facts are stated in the impugned order. The
impugned order also records the allegations and counter-
allegations made by the appellant and the respondent including
that the appellant allegedly had friendly relations with the 'house
owner' and 'neighbouring ladies'. The appellant also did not visit
the respondent and their child who were residing in the house of
the respondent's parents at the relevant point of time.
7. The issue before the Court is whether the appellant has
been able to make out a case for divorce under the grounds of
'cruelty' and 'desertion'.
8. Even if we were to ignore the case sought to be made out
by the appellant for divorce and the evidence led by him as
P.W.1, the affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief of the
respondent and the evidence given by her disclose certain
significant facts which should be stated in some detail.
9. The respondent states in her affidavit that the appellant
disclosed within a few days of her marriage that he has five girl
friends and also had frequent late-night conversations with them.
The respondent says that the appellant used to neglect the
respondent and talk to the house-owner and "neighbouring
ladies" for hours and used to insult the respondent in front of
them. The accused also bought sarees and innerwear for the
neighbouring ladies and did not pay any heed to the
respondent's concern in respect of these associations. The
respondent also says that the appellant was addicted to alcohol
and refused to mend his ways or make any effort for a happy
conjugal life with the respondent. The appellant also meted out
inhuman treatment on the respondent in an intoxicated state and
attacked the respondent with household articles which resulted
in the respondent being injured.
10. In the respondent's cross-examination, the respondent
denies that she blamed the appellant for having intimate relations
with the landlady. The respondent also denies that the appellant
beat her up or physically threw her out of her matrimonial home
in November, 2013. The respondent also admits that she has been
living apart from the appellant since 04.11.2013. The respondent
further denies that her father went to the appellant's house on
04.11.2013 along with henchmen or beat the appellant up or took
the respondent away from the appellant's house. The respondent
admits that she did not consult the doctor due to personal
problems and the appellant did not offer to take her for medical
treatment after that. The respondent admits that she filed a
complaint against the appellant at Athmakur Police Station.
11. The evidence given by the respondent and the statements
made by her in the affidavit show that the respondent has cast
serious aspersions against the appellant which virtually amounts
to character assassination. The cross-examination of the
respondent makes it clear that these allegations do not have a
basis. The picture would have completely changed had the
respondent been able to substantiate the allegations made by her
against the petitioner in the affidavit. Significantly, the
respondent has also not shown, by evidence, affidavit or
otherwise that she intends to resume her conjugal life with the
petitioner.
12. The other point raised by the respondent is that the
appellant is not providing financial support to the respondent or
their child. Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us
that the appellant is presently without a job. Hence, the
respondent's stand of the appellant failing to provide any form of
financial security to the respondent appears to be without basis.
Further, the issue of maintenance is an entirely independent
proceeding which the respondent is entitled to pursue before the
appropriate forum. We cannot direct the appellant to provide
maintenance in the present appeal which arises from the rejection
of the appellant's prayer for divorce.
13. The word "cruelty" found in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act
has not received a definition under the Act. The expression
"cruelty" has however been considered by the Supreme Court
and various High Courts in a long-line of decisions and covers
gradations of behaviour which the Courts found to be cruel.
Neglect of a spouse, refusing to sever marital ties, filing of false
complaints and exposing a spouse to criminal litigation were
found to qualify as cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act:
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 1, Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela
Rani 2, Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja 3. The Supreme Court also took
into account the impact of serious allegations in Sivasankaran v.
Santhimeenal 4. Repeated filing of cases amounts to mental cruelty
and refusing to sever ties where there has been a long period of
separation were found to be qualify as cruel conduct: K. Srinivas
Rao v. D.A. Deepa 5.
(2007) 4 SCC 511
(2020) 18 SCC 247
(2017) 14 SCC 194
(2022) 15 SCC 742
(2013) 5 SCC 226
14. "Cruelty" cannot be defined with mathematical precision
and must depend on the particular circumstances of the parties
i.e., the person who is responsible for the cruel conduct and the
person who suffers such conduct. It also depends on the
mindsets, socio-economic and educational standing of the
persons concerned and their experience and exposure in the
relevant context.
15. The concept of "cruelty" within the framework of Section
13(1) of the Act has undergone a transformation as seen from the
pronouncements of the Supreme Court under the powers
conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions,
including in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 6, Sivasankaran v.
Santhimeenal 7 and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 8, held that
the Courts should consider the repercussions and impact of the
allegations and counter allegations made by the parties and
recognize instances of marriages having disintegrated beyond
2006 (4) SCC 558
(2022) 15 SCC 742
Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1118 of 2014
repair. The Supreme Court took into account long periods of
continuous separation as one of the reasons for holding that the
broken matrimonial bond cannot be re-built and any effort made
by the Court to reconcile the parties would be futile.
16. Courts must hence recognize in fit cases whether the
marriage has disintegrated and cannot be preserved anymore. It
would be beyond the scope of judicial enquiry to ignore the
obvious fault lines for persons to continue with the marriage.
17. The specific statements given by the respondent/wife and
her parents make it clear that the respondent levelled false
allegations against the appellant which were serious in nature
and were bound to have an impact on the appellant's life and
work prospects. The appellant is presently unemployed. Hence,
these allegations have the potential to cause further damage to
the appellant's overall future prospects. The respondent has not
shown any reason for making these complaints/allegations
against the appellant and only seeks to resume her marital life for
the sake of 'security' which itself is an unsubstantiated and
specious argument.
18. The respondent also admitted in her cross-examination that
she has been living apart from the appellant from 04.11.2013 on a
continuous basis. More than 11 years have passed since then.
The respondent has not shown any evidence that she attempted
to resume her marital life in the last 11 years or filed any
proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.
19. The above reasons persuade us to allow the appeal and set
aside the impugned order.
20. The impugned order dated 30.08.2022 is accordingly set
aside. C.M.A.No.517 of 2022 along with all connected
Interlocutory Applications is accordingly allowed and disposed
of in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
______________________________
M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J
Date: 08.07.2024
va
