Telangana High Court
Venakta Kishore Nutakki vs Keerti Kata on 7 June, 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.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(as per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)
The lis involved in these appeals and the parties are one and
the same, these appeals were heard together and decided by way
of this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri S.Raghuram, learned counsel representing
Smt K.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant in F.C.A.Nos.21 of 2012 and 81 of 2015 and
respondent in F.C.A.No.22 of 2012.
3. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant in
F.C.A.No.22 of 2012 and respondent in F.C.A.Nos.21 of 2012 and
81 of 2015. Perused the record.
Facts:
4. Appellant-wife in F.C.A.No.22 of 2012 had filed
F.C.O.P.No.822 of 2009, against respondent-husband under
Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act r/w Section 7 of Family
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
Courts Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty.
5. Respondent-husband had filed I.A.No.675 of 2011 in
F.C.A.No.81 of 2015, under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act,
seeking return of gold ornaments.
6. As discussed supra, appellant-wife had filed aforesaid O.P
against respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage
contending as follows:
7. Their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2008 as per Hindu
rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. Immediately after
marriage, appellant-wife and respondent-husband went to
Vijayawada to her in-laws house and stayed there about 10 days.
Dr.K.K.Krishna Kumari, Associate Professor in Women's Studies
in Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, appellant's mother-in-law
sister accompanied her to Vijayawada. She accepted to stay with
her for 3 days. But, she was ill treated by her in-laws. She was
told that she was not welcome to their house as she did not bring
expected dowry. She was informed that if she did not leave, she
would be harassed. Therefore, she had to leave after reception.
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
After reception, her mother-in-law, Smt Shobha Rani took the
entire gold and silver articles from the appellant saying that she
would keep them in her safe custody. Appellant in-laws also
harassed her saying that she did not get dowry. They have
expected Rs.2.5 crores as dowry, whereas appellant parents gave
gold and silver articles worth about Rs.15 lakhs. During her stay
at Vijayawada, her in-laws younger sister-in-law, Sravanthi
repeatedly commented her saying that she was not fair and
beautiful. They did not even provide food to her. She was
compelled to stay there for 10 days. Respondent used to spend
his entire day outside house and he used to come home late in
the night in inebriated condition. Thus, they made the appellant
to stay at Vijayawada miserably.
8. In the first week of May, 2008, appellant along with
respondent came to Hyderabad to her parents' house. There also,
she insisted additional dowry or otherwise respondent will not
take her to U.S.A. Therefore, appellant's mother gave Rs.5 lakhs
and assured more money. Both the appellant and respondent
went to U.S.Consulate at Chennai for Visa and there appellant
came to know that respondent was fined for driving in a drunken
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
state. With a fond hope that he would change his attitude, she
joined him in USA. There was no change in his attitude. He used
to come home in drunken state and used to beat her
indiscriminately for silly reasons. She suffered torture and
harassment, which is intolerable. The said fact was informed to
her parents, who came to U.S.A. They tried to convince the
respondent. But there was no change.
9. On 27.07.2008, respondent abused the appellant physically
for trivial things. She cried throughout the night and became
dehydrated. He did not join her in hospital. On the assurance
given by the appellant's father that he will pay the bill,
respondent joined her in Valley Hospital by calling ambulance.
That even in U.S.A, he subjected her to cruelty. On 02.11.2008,
the appellant dragged her out of the bed room and started
beating her. He beat her on her face with glass due to which she
received cut injury on her lip and a tooth was broken. He then
asked her to go out of the flat and asked her to get lost. Then she
called her sister Deepthi and took her to Jersey City Medical
Centre for treatment. The said fact was informed to Jersey City
Police Department, who inturn registered a crime on 03.11.2008
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
and gave a report observing that there was an incident of
domestic violence and it is an aggravated assault. They have also
come to a conclusion that due to the physical assault her tooth
was broken. The police have arrested the respondent on
03.11.2008 and Riverdale Boro-Municipal Court granted bail to
him. A Panchayat was held. Appellant and respondent entered
into an agreement and it was reduced into writing on 30.01.2009.
In the said agreement, respondent agreed to stop all types of
alcohol and agreed to pay $1000 per month, till appellant get a
job in U.S.A. He did not honor the said commitment. Counselor
also made certain observations in his report dated 14.03.2009.
Due to the said untenable torture, she was compelled to lodge a
complaint in Women Police Station, C.C.S., on 22.05.2009, who
inturn registered a case in Crime No.235 of 2009 for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and
Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Her father-in-law,
mother-in-law, sister-in-law were arrested on 30.05.2009. Thus,
according to the appellant, respondent subjected her to cruelty.
10. Respondent filed counter denying the said allegations.
According to him, she only subjected him and his father to
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
cruelty and she implicated him and his entire family for cruelty.
Even then, he expressed his readiness to take the appellant to his
company. Therefore, he had filed counter claim in the said O.P,
seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
11. To prove the said allegations of cruelty, appellant-wife
examined herself as PW-1, her father as PW-2 and filed Exs.P1 to
P23 documents. To disprove the said grounds of cruelty and in
support of his counter claim, seeking restitution of conjugal
rights, respondent-husband examined himself as RW-1 and his
mother as RW-2 and filed Exs.R1 to R4. On consideration of the
entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order
dated 21.12.2011, learned Family Court allowed the said O.P
filed by the appellant-wife, seeking dissolution of marriage and
dismissed the counter claim filed by respondent-husband.
Learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.30 lakhs
towards permanent alimony and Rs.10,000/- towards legal
expenses to the appellant and the said amount is payable by the
respondent within three months from the date of the said order.
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent-husband
preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.21 of 2012 to the extent of
finding of cruelty and decree on permanent alimony.
13. As discussed supra, the marriage of appellant with
respondent was performed on 19.04.2008. She has filed aforesaid
O.P. on 16.07.2009. Within a short span of one year three
months, there were serious disputes between wife and husband.
According to wife, respondent and his parents' sister demanded
for an amount of Rs.2 crores towards dowry. She was harassed at
Vijayawada, during her stay. With a hope that her husband will
change his attitude, she joined respondent in U.S.A. There also,
he has harassed her and the said aspect was already narrated
supra. In fact, he has assaulted her physically. The same is
evident from Ex.P2 i.e., Photostat copy of Jersey City Police
Department, Investigation Report, Ex.P3 i.e., Photostat copy of
investigation report of Riverdale Police Department, Ex.P4 i.e.,
Photostat copy of complaint-warrant, Ex.P5 i.e., Photostat copy of
Pre-trial intervention order, Ex.P6 i.e., Photostat copy of
emergency certificates record of Jersey City Medical Centre of the
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
appellant and Ex.P7 i.e., Photostat copy of temporary restraint
order.
14. It is also relevant to note that Panchayat was held between
appellant and respondent, wherein respondent agreed that he
will stop taking alcohol and he will not harass the appellant.
Terms were reduced in writing vide Ex.P12 i.e., Photostat copy of
agreement, dated 30.01.2009 between appellant and respondent.
Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent
and it is also evident from Ex.P13 i.e., Photostat copy of
Counselor's letter and Ex.P14 i.e., Photostat copy of reply given
by appellant to the Counselor's letter. She has lodged a complaint
against respondent and his family members with Women Police
Station, who inturn registered a case in Crime No.235 of 2009 for
the offences under Section 498-A and 506 and Section 34 of IPC
and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against
respondent, his parents and sister. They were arrested on
30.05.2009. On completion of investigation, the investigating
Officer has filed a charge sheet.
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
15. On consideration of the entire evidence, learned Family
Court allowed the said O.P, filed by wife seeking dissolution of
marriage. However, learned Family Court granted an amount of
Rs.30 lakhs towards permanent alimony.
16. Respondent-husband is not aggrieved by the said decree of
divorce. He is aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Family
Court with regard to cruelty and Rs.30 lakhs towards permanent
alimony. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court in the impugned
order to the extent of granting decree of divorce, dissolving the
marriage of appellant-wife with respondent-husband dated
19.04.2008 is confirmed.
17. With regard to granting of aforesaid amount of Rs.30 lakhs
towards permanent alimony, learned Family Court relied upon
Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 i.e., salary certificates, Exs.15 and 16 i.e.,
Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.P17 i.e., Photostat copy of Market
Value Certificate, Ex.P18 i.e., Photostat copy of Deed of Partition
of immovable property in English vide document No.2395/1957,
Ex.P19 i.e., Photostat copy of true extract of partition deed in
Telugu vide document No.2395/1957, Ex.P20 i.e., Photostat copy
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
of Conveyance Deed, dated 12.04.2007, Ex.P21 i.e., Photostat
copy of car loan papers of the respondent, Ex.P22 i.e., Photostat
copy of USA job resignation letter of the respondent and Ex.P23
i.e., Photostat copy of C.C. of sale deed dated 08.03.2007,
executed by the father of respondent.
18. On consideration of the said aspects, in Paragraph No.35 to
39, learned Family Court gave specific findings and awarded the
said amount of Rs.30 lakhs towards permanent alimony.
19. It is relevant to note that feeling aggrieved by the said order,
awarding Rs.30 lakhs towards permanent alimony, husband
preferred F.C.A.No.21 of 2012 and vide order dated 28.03.2012,
this Court granted interim stay on the condition of respondent
depositing half of the permanent alimony granted by the learned
Family Court, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the said
date. On such deposit, wife is permitted to withdraw the same
without furnishing security.
20. As discussed supra, there is no representation on behalf of
appellant-wife.
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
21. Sri S.Raghuram, learned counsel appearing for respondent-
husband had filed written submissions stating that the
appellant-wife had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.8 of 2013,
contending that respondent-husband did not deposit 50% of the
amount of permanent alimony awarded by the learned Family
Court in compliance with the order granted by this Court on
28.03.2012 and sought for attachment of his salary. The said
E.P. was allowed. Since, then salary of husband is getting
deducted. He is still working in the very same organization
i.e.,Accenture. He has also filed a copy of notice of attachment
order dated 15.05.2013, salary slip for the month of January,
2016, to show that deduction has been made as per the order of
this Court in the said E.P. He is also staying in U.S.A and she is
also staying in U.S.A. She is working as SAP Consultant. She did
not file any application to withdraw the aforesaid amount
credited to the Execution Petition i.e., E.P.No.8 of 2013, which
shows that she is not interested. She is highly qualified, she is
also earning good salary and she is self sufficient. She is not
entitled for any permanent alimony.
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, appellant-wife is not
entitled for enhancement of permanent alimony i.e., Rs.50 lakhs
instead of Rs.30 lakhs. As discussed supra, learned Family Court
awarded an amount of Rs.30 lakhs by considering aforesaid
documents. Therefore, she failed to make out any case for
enhancement seeking permanent alimony. Hence, F.C.A.No.22 of
2012 is dismissed. F.C.A.No.21 of 2012 is allowed in part,
modifying the impugned order dated 21.12.2011, holding that
appellant-wife is entitled for the amount deposited by the
respondent-husband to the credit of E.P.No.8 of 2013 so far. He
need not pay any further amount and he is at liberty to take
steps accordingly by producing a copy of this order in E.P.No.8 of
2013.
23. As discussed supra, during pendency of O.P.No.822 of
2009, husband had filed an application vide I.A.No.670 of 2011,
under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking return of the
following ornaments:
1. One gold necklace studded by white stones (diamonds)
2. One more gold necklace (UNCUT diamonds)
3. One silver plate,
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
4. One kumkum bharan, made of gold
At the time of marriage, they presented:-
1. One white stones (diamonds) gold necklace with full set,
2. A pair of diamond bangles
3. Gold ring
4. Gold sacred rope
5. Black beats with diamond pendant
24. Vide impugned order dated 21.12.2011, learned Family Court
dismissed the said I.A., holding that it is the specific case of the
wife in O.P.No.822 of 2009 that after reception, her mother-in-
law took the entire god and silver articles stating that she will
keep the same in safe custody. Thereafter, respondent has filed
I.A.No.670 of 2011 on 05.09.2011, for return of jewellery. In the
counter, he has not mentioned the said aspects. Neither the
husband nor wife produced any evidence, either orally or
documentary, in proof of the same.
25. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned Family
Court vide impugned order dated 21.12.2011 dismissed the said
I.A.No.670 of 2011 in O.P.No.822 of 2009, filed by the husband.
It is a reasoned order and well founded. It does not require any
KL,J & PSS,J
F.C.A.Nos.21 and 22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015
interference of this Court. Thus, F.C.A.No.81 of 2015 fails and
the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
26. In the result, F.C.A.No.21 of 2012 is allowed in part and
F.C.A.Nos.22 of 2012 and 81 of 2015 are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the Family Court Appeals shall stand closed.
___________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
__________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
Date:07.06.2024
VSL
