Telangana High Court
Mr.Gaddipati Ramakrishna vs Smt.Gaddipati Prashanthi on 7 June, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.186 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)
Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Smt Gaddipati Prashanthi, learned party-in-
person/respondent. Perused the record.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
23.11.2011 in F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2010, passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, appellant-husband
preferred the present appeal.
3. Appellant-husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.220 of 2010
against respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty, contending as follows:-
i. Appellant was born in a middle class agricultural family
in Gudavalli Village, Guntur District.
ii. His father passed away, when he was 11 months old. His
mother was very young at that particular point of time.
Therefore, she remarried.
KL,J&PSS,J
iii. Appellant was brought up by his paternal grandparents.
With the dint of sheer hard work, he completed schooling
and intermediate and gained admission into Birla
Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani in the
year 1998. He completed his Masters in Management
Studies in the year 2002. Respondent is his classmate in
BITS, Pilani. They have interacted with each other.
iv. With the consent and approval of their families, they got
married on 14.05.2003 as per Hindu customs and rites
at TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Tenali, Guntur District. At
that particular point of time, he was working as a
Software Engineer in Leapstone Systems based at
Hyderabad, drawing a salary of Rs.2.5 lakhs per annum
approximately.
v. Respondent was unemployed and preparing for MBA
admission tests. She secured admission into MBA course
in Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune. She
completed her MBA in June 2005.
vi. Appellant worked as a Teaching Assistant in BITS, Pilani
for some time and thereafter he started his own company
KL,J&PSS,J
in the name and style of 'Bridle Information and
Technology Solutions Private Limited'. He was recognized
as one of the successful and inspiring entrepreneur by
several organizations and was felicitated at various
occasions. He was also named among the top 5 Asia's
Best Entrepreneur under the age of 25 by Business
Week, Hong Kong.
vii. It is further contended by the appellant that from the
date of inception of marriage, respondent did not extend
any meaningful cooperation to him and always taunting
him about his family, making nasty remarks about his
mother remarrying.
viii. According to her, appellant's mother ought not to have
remarried.
ix. She used to say that appellant mother was not at all
interested in the welfare of her children and was only
concerned about herself. These comments hurt the
appellant's feelings time and again.
x. Respondent used to exhibit temper frequently. On one
occasion, during their honeymoon, she broke a camera
KL,J&PSS,J
and a cell phone in a fit of rage. He has obtained three
bedroom house on rent in SMR Vinay Classic apartment
in Madhapur, Hyderabad, in the month of July, 2005 to
start his marital life.
xi. Respondent and her mother came for house warming
ceremony, picked up ugly fight with the house owner
after seeing that the interior work was not complete.
Appellant tried to pacify the same.
xii. Respondent's mother shouted at the appellant saying
that he does not have any means to support her
daughter. She could have got a much better husband for
her, who owns a bungalow.
xiii. He will kill her one day either by starving her to death on
account of lack of means to support her or burn her by
dousing her with kerosene and setting her aflame.
xiv. Appellant was making every effort to make the said
Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private
Limited a success. Respondent was all the time
undermining his confidence by making unreasonable
demands. On several occasions, in the month of June,
KL,J&PSS,J
2005, when the appellant was busy with his work in his
office situated at Paradise Circle, MG Road,
Secunderabad, respondent came into his chamber with a
fistful of pills and threatened that she would swallow
them if he does not start immediately with her to see her
parents. Shocked by such behaviour of the respondent,
appellant had to unwillingly oblige.
xv. She was extremely suspicious by nature.
xvi. On several occasions respondent's mother made baseless
allegations against the appellant the he was returning
home late night and he might have spent his time with
some other woman.
xvii. Respondent developed acquaintance with one Harshavardhan
Reddy, while she was doing her internship at Iridium
Interactive Private Limited, Hyderabad as part of
undergraduate program curriculum in the year 2002. He was
also employed.
xviii. Respondent seems to have maintained contact with him
even after marrying the appellant.
KL,J&PSS,J
xix. After completion of MBA, she took up employment with
Indian School of Business, Gachibowli, Hyderabad on
05.04.2005.
xx. After completion of her MBA in Pune, she was employed
as an Assistant Manager in Alumni Relations.
xxi. She once again revived her acquaintance with the said
Harshavardhan Reddy.
xxii. She appeared to have developed a fairly intimate
relationship with said Harshavardhan Reddy, and she
exchanged SMSs', emails and making frequent telephone
calls to him and was travelling with him in his car.
xxiii. They were also seen at various public places like
restaurants and malls.
xxiv. The said Harshavardhan Reddy was frequently visiting
the Indian School of Business even though he has no
ostensible reason for doing so, except to meet the
respondent.
xxv. The said Harshavardhan Reddy is about 5 years elder to
the respondent and he is already married and blessed
with a child.
KL,J&PSS,J
xxvi. On 21.03.2006, appellant accidentally stumbled upon
emails sent by the respondent to Harshavardhan Reddy
and mails sent by him to the respondent. Emails are
dated between 13.03.2006 and 20.03.2006. A reading of
the said emails would clearly disclose that the
respondent and said Harshavardhan Reddy were on
extremely intimate terms. In email dated 20.03.2006,
Harshavardhan Reddy stated that he was waiting for a
telephone call from the respondent and that every
passing second was like an hour for him. In another
email, he also stated that he is dying to talk to the
respondent and would be with her throughout her life.
Email sent by respondent to Harshavardhan Reddy
discloses an excessive amount of familiarity and intimacy
with him. In one of the emails, Harshavardhan Reddy
gets emboldened enough to tell the respondent that she
should "teach" the appellant "a lesson" for interfering
with the relationship between him and the respondent.
xxvii. On 21.03.2006, appellant requested respondent to
explain her relationship vis-a-vis Harshavardhan Reddy.
KL,J&PSS,J
However, she was screamed angrily at the appellant. She
does not want to live with him anymore and asked him to
get out from her life.
xxviii. Appellant also explained the said fact to respondent's
father, who called the said Harshavardhan Reddy.
xxix. Respondent attempted to commit suicide by swallowing a
diamond ring. The said ring came out by next morning,
without causing any damage to the respondent.
xxx. She and her parents threatened the appellant that they
will implicate him in a criminal case for the offence
under Section 498-A of IPC and ensured that he will be
behind bars and they will see his son's end.
xxxi. Respondent's father arranged a meeting with appellant
and respondent on 12.04.2006 at 10:00 AM to sort out
the differences. He also called the said Harshavardhan
Reddy to the said meeting. Therefore, appellant and
respondent were travelling in a car to the respondent's
father's residence and as soon as the car reached her
father's residence, respondent saw Harshavardhan
Reddy car parked in front of the house and she
KL,J&PSS,J
panicked, got out of the car, jumped into an auto
rickshaw from the nearby auto-rickshaw stand.
xxxii. Appellant informed the said facts to respondent's father
and followed the said auto in his car.
xxxiii. Respondent reached Hussain Sagar lake and the
appellant accosted her. She screamed at the appellant
and threatened to jump into Hussain Sagar lake. With
great difficulty, appellant was able to dissuade the
respondent from committing suicide. Thereafter, he has
taken her to restaurant. He called respondent's father to
the said restaurant.
xxxiv. After much persuasion, respondent calmed down and
her father took her to his house.
xxxv. Respondent's actions have left a scar on the appellant's
psyche and he was completely broken hearted.
xxxvi. Respondent promised the appellant that she would sever
her relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy. On promise
and assurance given by her, appellant resumed the
matrimonial life with respondent around July, 2006 at
404, Ashraya Apartments, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.
KL,J&PSS,J
xxxvii. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent.
xxxviii. Owing to the type of emotional blackmail, appellant
resigned to the said M/s Bridle Information and
Technology Solutions Private Limited on 05.04.2007. He
got offers in many companies in Mumbai as well as USA.
Though appellant joined as Manager in Mogran Stanley
Advantage Services Private Limited, Mumbai, respondent
continued her job at Indian School of Business,
Hyderabad.
xxxix. Appellant got offers in USA. Therefore, he resigned his
job in Mogran Stanley, Mumbai on 30.07.2008 and
respondent agreed to join him in USA. For the reasons
best known to her, after appellant returned to
Hyderabad. She changed her mind and declined to go to
USA along with the appellant. She also threatened him
that he would not be able to see his child if he takes up a
job in USA. Owing to the respondent's intense pressure,
appellant dropped the idea of moving to USA.
xl. Respondent hindered the appellant in pursuing
investment opportunities of his choice and was very
KL,J&PSS,J
vehement in insisting that any investment should be as
per her will and all investments should carry her name
as well, compromising his financial security.
xli. When appellant wanted to buy an apartment in Ramky
Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, he requested
respondent to help him in timely filling-up of the
application form and pay a lakh rupee as sent as an
advance. She did not cooperate with him. Thus,
respondent traumatized the appellant day and night to
invest in the proposed construction. She wouldn't let him
sleep. She would cry and shout during nights insisting to
invest in the project.
xlii. Thus, right from the date of wedding, her conduct was
unreasonable manner inflicting untold mental agony and
misery on the appellant. The same constitute cruelty.
xliii. After several attempts made by him for reconciliation
with the involvement of elders, the said efforts went in
vain.
xliv. He urged her to understand the problems and explained
her.
KL,J&PSS,J
xlv. There was no change in her attitude. Vide emails dated
26.04.2006, 04.05.2009 and 16.04.2010, he requested
her to cooperate. There was no change.
xlvi. On the insistence of the respondent, he agreed to see a
marriage counselor, namely Mrs.Surekha Guptan.
Several counseling sessions were held at Hyderabad in
the months of April and May, 2010. There is no solution.
xlvii. E-mails dated 30.03.2010, 13.04.2010 and 17.04.2010
revealed the attitude of the respondent and she
confessed attempting to commit suicide in the past. In
email dated 30.03.2010, She admitted that she cannot
tolerate the appellant's grandmother and cannot stand
anything proposed by her. Thus, according to the
appellant, respondent subjected him to cruelty and he
has narrated the said cruelty, which reads as follows:
1. Abusing the appellant, making disrespectful and
disparaging remarks against his mother and grandparents in
filthy language.
2. Threatening to commit suicide on several occasions and
on one occasion attempting to commit suicide by swallowing
a diamond ring.
KL,J&PSS,J
3. Entering into a questionable relationship with
Harshavardhan Reddy, thereby causing immense
physiological insecurity in the mind of the appellant and
thereby inflicting maximum amount of cruelty on the
appellant.
4. Causing social embarrassment to the appellant on
account of her reckless and irresponsible association with
Harshavardhan Reddy and with her ever suspicious mind
set, calling several friends and acquaintance enquiring
whereabouts of the appellant.
5. Threatening to foist false criminal cases under Section
498-A of IPC not only against the appellant, but also against
his mother, step father, uncle and aunt and thus to put
them behind the bars.
6. Deliberately and wantonly hindering the career
progression of the appellant by refusing to go to Mumbai, the
UK or the USA.
7. Causing financial loss by insisting on the appellant
giving-up his position as Managing Director of Bridle
Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited. The
said company has now been taken over for rupees four
crores.
8. Insisting on the appellant giving her unlimited access to
his bank accounts and needless and unwarranted
interference in his interpersonal relations with his relatives.
9. Pressurising the appellant to invest money as per the
will of the respondent, even at the cost of compromising
financial security of the appellant.
KL,J&PSS,J
10. Preventing him from meeting his social obligations by
making small donations towards the construction of a
temple and/or helping needy relatives.
4. Respondent filed a detailed counter, denying the said
allegations, with the following contentions:-
i. She never subjected the appellant to cruelty as alleged by
him. In fact, he only harassed her in collusion with his
mother, step father and maternal uncle.
ii. She has denied her relationship with Harshavardhan
Reddy. According to her, the said Harshavardhan Reddy
was only her colleague.
iii. Appellant's mother used to visit the appellant atleast once
in six months and used to stay at respondent house.
Respondent has taken care of her welfare whenever she was
in their house. Even then, appellant made all the said
allegations only to file the present appeal and to get rid of
her.
iv. He is of suspicious nature.
v. E-mails filed by him are of only two days i.e., 13.03.2006
and 20.03.2006. The same would not prove the alleged
KL,J&PSS,J
illicit relation between respondent and the said
Harshavardhan Reddy.
vi. Due to suspicious nature of the appellant, respondent
forced to abort her first pregnancy.
vii. She blessed with a male child on 23.05.2007.
viii. Panchayat was held on 12.04.2006.
ix. Appellant made all false allegations against the respondent.
x. She never tried to commit suicide as alleged by the
respondent.
xi. In fact, the appellant is maintaining acquaintance with one
Ms.Shilpa, since intermediate. In one of the more short
trips of less than a week to the United States in November,
2007, appellant met the said Shilpa and had financial
transactions with her.
xii. On the other hand, he started blaming the respondent. On
the insistence/request made by the appellant, she named
her son as G.Neo Venkat, as Venkateshwarlu, is his
maternal uncle's name. Therefore, he requested that their
son's name should include 'Venkat' name. Therefore, she
KL,J&PSS,J
named her son as G.Neo Venkat. The said fact would reveal
that she never harassed him as alleged by him.
xiii. On the complaint lodged by the respondent, a case in
D.V.M.C.No.29 of 2010 was registered against the
appellant.
xiv. She never tried to swallow diamond ring and she never tried
to commit suicide by jumping into Hussain Sagar lake as
alleged by the appellant.
5. To prove the said allegations of cruelty, appellant
examined himself as PW-1 and got examined his classmate i.e.,
Mr.K.Hari Krishnan in BITS, Pilani as PW-2. He has filed Ex.A1
i.e., Wedding card, Ex.A2 i.e., Wedding photo, Ex.A3 i.e., Photo
copy of marriage certificate, Ex.A4 i.e., Photo copy of household
card, Exs.A5 to A14 i.e., copy of e-mails, Exs.A15 and A16 i.e.,
c.c. of extract from the minutes of the Board of Directors and
Ex.A17 i.e., c.c. of letter to the Project Director, Ranga Reddy
District.
6. To disprove the said ground of cruelty, respondent
examined herself as RW-1 and filed Exs.B1 and B2 i.e., photos,
KL,J&PSS,J
Ex.B3 i.e., cradle ceremony photo, Ex.B4 i.e., letter received from
Ramky Towers Limited, Ex.B5 i.e., news published in Economic
Times, Ex.B6 i.e., copy of the ticket booking, Ex.B7 i.e., savings
bank account, Ex.B8 i.e., wedding card, Ex.B9 i.e., copy of letter
received from office of Registrar Companies, Ex.B10 i.e., copy of
returns for the years 2005-06, Ex.B11 i.e., letter received in ING
life Insurance and Ex.B12 i.e., offer letter.
7. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P. filed
by the appellant-husband by holding that the appellant failed to
prove the said cruelty by producing legally acceptable evidence.
The disputes between the appellant and respondent are petty
disputes and it does not amount to cruelty. Challenging the said
order, appellant preferred the present appeal.
8. Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant contended that respondent never cooperated
with the appellant in leading normal happy marital life and she
used to suspect the appellant. She attempted to commit suicide
by swallowing diamond ring, trying to jump into Hussain Sagar
KL,J&PSS,J
lake. She has incited the appellant and his mother by passing
objectionable remarks and she maintained illicit relationship with
Harshavardhan Reddy. She was adamant and non-cooperative.
She broke camera and cell phone in fit of rage. She picked up
quarrel with the house owner at the time of house warming
ceremony. She has threatened appellant that she will implicate
the appellant in false criminal case for the offence under Section
498-A of IPC. Respondent deliberately and wantonly hindered the
career progression of appellant by refusing to join him at
Mumbai, UK and USA and caused financial loss to him by
insisting him to give up his position as Managing Director of
Bridle Information and Technology Solutions Private Limited.
Respondent insisted the appellant by giving her unlimited access
to his bank accounts and needless and unwarranted interference
in his interpersonal relations with his relatives. She pressurized
the appellant to invest money as per her will, even at the cost of
compromising his financial security. Respondent prevented him
from meeting his social obligations by making small donations
towards the construction of temple and helping needy relatives.
KL,J&PSS,J
9. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the principle
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v.Neelu
Kohli 1 , Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 2 , Suman Kapur v.
Sudhir Kapur 3 , Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple alias Kajal 4 ,
Vishwanath Agarwal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agarwal 5 ,
K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A.Deepa 6 , Malathi Ravi v. B.V.Ravi 7 ,
Narendra v.K.Meena 8, Kusum v. Gurcharan Singh 9,Joydeep
Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar 10 , Badat and
Company v. East India Trading Company11, Gian Chand and
Brothers and another v. Rattan Lal alias Rattan Singh 12 and
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal
representatives v. Muddasani Sarojana13.
10. Whereas, learned Party-in-person/respondent contended
that appellant failed to prove the aforesaid cruel acts. The
2006 (4) SCC 558
2007 (4) SCC 511
2009(1) SCC 422
2011 (12) SCC 1
2012 (7) SCC 288
2013 (5) SCC 226
2014 (7) SCC 640
2016 (9) SCC 455
2018 SCC Online Del 12576
2021 (3) SCC 742
AIR 1964 SC 538
(2013) 2 Supreme Court 606
(2016) 12 SCC 288
KL,J&PSS,J
instances referred by him are vague and created only for the
purpose of filing the aforesaid O.P. Though the appellant referred
so many instances, he failed to examine any witness. Except
examining his classmate in BITS, Pilani as PW-2, he has not
examined any other witness. Even deposition of PW-2 is not
helpful to the appellant to prove the said cruelty.
11. On consideration of entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the O.P, filed by
the appellant. There is no error in it.
12. As discussed supra, appellant alleged cruelty against the
respondent. He has stated about the incident happened in the
month of July, 2005 i.e., respondent and her mother picked up
an ugly fight with house owner during house warming ceremony
at SMR Vinay Classic apartment in Madhapur, Hyderabad. But,
he has not produced any evidence. He has not examined the said
house owner to prove the said incident. He has admitted the said
fact during cross examination.
13. According to the appellant, due to non-cooperative attitude
of respondent, he was compelled to resign to the Managing
KL,J&PSS,J
Directorship of Bridal Information and Technology Solutions
Private Limited. But according to the respondent, the said
Company was not doing well and therefore he has resigned to the
said Company. Appellant failed to disprove the said fact.
14. In Paragraph No.8 of the petition, appellant has made an
allegation with regard to incident of June, 2005 i.e., respondent
came to his office chamber in his office situated at Paradise
Circle, MG Road, Secunderabad, with fistful of pills, threatened
the appellant that she would swallow pills if he doesn't start
immediately with her to see her parents. But, he failed to prove
the said incident by producing any evidence. He has not
examined any witness. He failed to elicit anything from
respondent (RW-1) during cross examination. Thus, he failed to
prove the said incident.
15. He has also made a serious allegation that respondent
developed acquaintance with Harshavardhan Reddy, while she
was doing her internship in the year 2002. Even the appellant
knows that the said Harshavardhan Reddy as much as
respondent knows. The relation was nothing more than just a
colleague. Respondent never hid anything. Appellant got access to
KL,J&PSS,J
her email account and her password to log in. Emails have been
filed before the Court for a period of just two days i.e., dated
13.03.2006 and 20.03.2006. The same does not prove any illicit
relation. On one occasion, appellant, respondent along with other
friends including Harshavardhan Reddy went on an outing. The
said fact would reveal that appellant had made the said
allegations with a malafide intention only to file the aforesaid O.P.
Despite the said specific contentions of the respondent in
Paragraph No.11 of the counter, appellant failed to prove that
respondent has maintained close intimacy with the said
Harshavardhan Reddy. He has not filed any rejoinder adverting to
the same.
16. Appellant also made an allegation that respondent's father
arranged a meeting with appellant and respondent on 12.04.2006
and he also called the said Harshavardhan Reddy to his house.
Respondent jumped from his car and boarded auto went to
Hussain Sagar lake to commit suicide by jumping into the said
lake. He has called respondent's father. But he failed to prove the
said fact by producing any evidence.
KL,J&PSS,J
17. Appellant has also made an allegation that he requested
the respondent to explain her illegal relation with Harshavardhan
Reddy on 21.03.2006 and that respondent confessed the same.
But he failed to prove the same, even during cross examination of
RW-1, on examining any witness.
18. Appellant has also made serious allegations that
respondent tried to commit suicide, but he has not produced any
evidence to the said effect and failed to prove the same during
cross examination of RW-1. He also made an allegation that
respondent promised and assured him that she will change her
attitude and behave properly. Therefore, he has resumed
matrimonial life with respondent around July, 2006 at Ashraya
Apartments, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. But, he has not elicited
anything from respondent during cross examination on the said
aspect apart from producing any evidence either oral or
documentary. He has also made an allegation that owing to the
type of emotional blackmailing, he resigned to M/s Bridle
Information and Technology Solutions Private limited on
05.04.2007.
KL,J&PSS,J
19. As discussed supra, according to the respondent, the said
company was not doing well, Therefore, appellant has submitted
resignation. But, he has not produced any evidence to prove the
same, except saying that respondent did not deny the said fact in
the counter. In fact, she has denied the said fact in the counter
and she has specifically stated that the said company was not
doing well at that particular point of time. Appellant also failed to
prove that respondent did not cooperate with him by joining him
at USA, UK or Mumbai.
20. As discussed supra, it is the specific case of the
respondent that she did MBA course in Symbiosis Institute of
Management Studies, Pune and she used to work in Indian
School of Business, Hyderabad, which is a reputed organization.
Thus, she is highly qualified person and interested in working in
a reputed organization like Indian School of Business. Infact, he
only encouraged her in completing her MBA. Now, he can't blame
her. Appellant requested the respondent to come and join him in
Mumbai and USA, respondent did not accept for the same.
Appellant also failed to produce any evidence and failed to prove
that respondent was vehement in insisting him that investment
KL,J&PSS,J
should be made as per her will and fancy. He also failed to prove
the alleged drama.
21. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, learned Family Court gave a specific finding with
regard to the alleged relationship between respondent and said
Harshavardhan Reddy. In Paragraph No.6 of the impugned order,
learned Family Court specifically stated that there is no need of
reproducing the evidence oral or documentary. Learned Family
Court also gave a specific finding that the allegations made by the
appellant against the respondent are not substantiated by any
evidence. Learned Family Court also referred the admissions
made by the appellant (PW-1) during cross examination with
regard to death of his father, brother etc.
22. On consideration of the depositions of PW-1, RW-1 and
PW-2 and also emails, in paragraph No.14, learned Family Court
gave a finding that the appellant developed inferiority complex
against the behaviour of the respondent. Though respondent has
grievance against appellant and his family members, she never
disputed to give the name of the child as G.Neo Venkat, as the
said name is appellant's maternal uncle's name. In such
KL,J&PSS,J
circumstances, the allegations leveled by the appellant that
respondent abused him and making disrespectful remarks
against him and his family members appears to be unbelievable.
23. Learned Family Court also gave a specific finding that
appellant failed to prove that respondent attempted to commit
suicide by swallowing diamond ring, sleeping pills and jumping
into Hussain Sagar lake by producing any evidence. Learned
Family Court also referred the depositions of PW-2 in Paragraph
No.17, holding that the said evidence is not useful to the
appellant to prove that he was subjected to cruelty by the
respondent.
24. With regard to the allegation of the appellant that
respondent maintained illicit relation with Harshavardhan Reddy,
in Panchayat, she expressed her readiness to underwent DNA test
for which appellant did not come forward. The said fact would
reveal that the allegation made by the appellant that respondent
maintained illicit relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy cannot
be believed. There is a specific finding in Paragraph Nos.20 and
21 of the impugned order on the said aspect. Learned Family
Court held that Harshavardhan Reddy is a colleague of
KL,J&PSS,J
respondent. She has admitted the said fact in the counter itself
and Exs.A5 to A14 i.e., emails. Exchange of the said messages
between respondent and Harshavardhan Reddy shall prove the
said messages do not reflect any such objectionable intimacy
between them.
25. Learned Family Court further held that in these days of
globalization everybody who has acquaintance in the computer
field and there may be exchange of messages and being a
colleague, respondent can send messages and receive messages
from Harshavardhan Reddy. Admittedly, the said Harshavardhan
Reddy is married and blessed with a boy.
26. The contention of the respondent is that she needs family
life and child needs normal life. Learned Family Court also
considered the education and avocation of parties that both are
engineering graduates at BITS, Pilani, after that she did MBA and
he established a company. She is working in Indian School of
Business and in view of said temperament of parties, even if the
messages are true, learned Family Court is of the considered view
that the said messages cannot suggest that she has objectionable
intimacy with Harshavardhan Reddy. When appellant started
KL,J&PSS,J
suspecting respondent, they felt bad for that, hence that message
cannot taken in negative manner.
27. As discussed supra, on consideration of the entire
evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court
dismissed the aforesaid O.P., filed by the appellant seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is a reasoned
order and well founded. Appellant failed to make out any case to
interfere with the said order.
28. Mr.Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance on the aforesaid judgments to contend that the acts of
the respondent in attempting to commit suicide thrice by
swallowing sleeping pills, attempting to jump into Hussain Sagar
lake and swallowing diamond ring.
29. As discussed supra, though he made so many allegations
against respondent, including committing suicide and
maintaining illicit relationship with Harshavardhan Reddy,
appellant failed to prove the same by producing any evidence
either oral or documentary. He failed to elicit anything during
cross examination of RW-1.
KL,J&PSS,J
30. In the light of the same, the aforesaid judgments relied by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant are no
way helpful to the case of the appellant.
31. In fact, in Samar Ghosh's case (2 supra), in Paragraph
No.101, Hon'ble Apex Court gave certain instances of mental
cruelty which are illustrative but not exhaustive and the same are
extracted below:
"No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance,
yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of
human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the
cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the
succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not
make possible for the parties to live with each other could
come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life
of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is
such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to
put up with such conduct and continue to live with other
party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner,
indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it
makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely
intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused
KL,J&PSS,J
by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental
cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of
the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one
spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the
other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant
danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and
weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard of
conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving
sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and
dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for
grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of
the married life which happens in day to day life would not
be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few
isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to
cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy
period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent
that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the
wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the
other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife
undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or
KL,J&PSS,J
without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an
act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to
cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie,
the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations,
it may lead to mental cruelty".
32. In Naveen Kohli's Case (1 Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court
referred and considered cruelty including physical or mental
cruelty and certain factors to determine the same.
33. In V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat 14 , Hon'ble Apex Court
delineated the concept of mental cruelty as conduct that
imposes such significant mental anguish and suffering upon
one party that cohabitation with the other becomes untenable.
This distress must reach a threshold where the parties cannot
reasonably be expected to reside together harmoniously.
(1994) 1 SCC 377
KL,J&PSS,J
34. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. The Court has to
consider the evidence on record to come to a conclusion
whether the allegations made by the parties amounts to cruelty
including mental cruelty. As discussed supra in Samar
Ghosh's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court referred
certain instances of mental cruelty which are illustrative, but
not exhaustive.
35. In Dastane v. Dastane 15 and Samar Ghosh's case (2
supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court elucidated that when assessing
the issue of cruelty, considerations must be given to the social
stature, educational background, and the societal milieu in
which the parties operate. The feasibility of the parties
reconciling and resuming conjugal life is also a pertinent factor.
Importantly, what may constitute cruelty in one instance may
not necessarily meet the criteria in another. The determination
of cruelty hinges upon the specific facts and circumstances
unique to each case.
AIR 1975 SC 1534
KL,J&PSS,J
36. In Naveen Kohli's case (1 supra), drawing the warning
by Lord Denning in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky16, Apex Court held
as below:
"If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find
ourselves granting divorce for incomparability of temperament.
This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The
temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs
where the institution of marriage itself is imperiled."
37. The threshold of what constitutes a cruel conduct may differ
between a man and a woman. What is cruelty for a women 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.
38. As discussed supra, the appellant though made several
serious allegations against the appellant, he failed to prove the same
either by producing evidence or during cross examination of RW-1.
39. As discussed supra, on consideration of the said aspects
only, learned Family Court gave a specific finding that
appellant failed to prove the cruelty by producing legally
acceptable evidence.
40. Both the appellant and respondent were blessed with a
baby boy by name G.Neo Venkat on 23.05.2007. He is aged
(1950) 2 All ER 398
KL,J&PSS,J
about 17 years as of now. He is prosecuting studies and he is
with respondent. Appellant and respondent are classmates in
BITS, Pilani and married after understanding with each other.
After some time, they failed to lead their marital life. They
started suspecting each other. Appellant alleged that
respondent maintained illicit relationship with one
Harshavardhan Reddy and whereas respondent alleged that
appellant is having intimacy with Ms.Shilpa from his
intermediate days. Both of them failed to prove the same by
producing some acceptable evidence.
41. It is apt to note that the appellant filed the aforesaid O.P.,
alleging that the respondent maintained illicit relationship with
Harshavardhan Reddy, but he has filed the aforesaid O.P., on
the ground of cruelty. It is not on the ground of adultery and
that he did not make the said Harshavardhan Reddy as
respondent to the said O.P. It is a serious allegation and the
appellant has to prove the said allegation by producing legally
acceptable evidence. He failed to prove the same. Learned
Family Court considered the said aspect and held that the
appellant failed to prove the said aspect by producing legally
KL,J&PSS,J
acceptable evidence. The said finding of the learned Family
Court is on sound reasons.
42. Thus, on consideration of the entire evidence, learned
Family Court dismissed the said O.P., filed by the appellant.
Thus, viewed from any angle, this appeal is liable to be
dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the Family Court Appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
___________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
Date:07.06.2024
VSL
