Telangana High Court
Dr. Ravi Sankar Erukulapati vs Dr. Smt. Lakshmi Chirumamilla on 7 June, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
F.C.A. Nos.123 and 124 OF 2021
AND
CRL.R.C. Nos.656 OF 2021 and 159 OF 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the appellant/wife in
F.C.A.Nos.123 and 124 of 2021 and petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.159 of
2022 and respondents in Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021 and Sri Eranki
Phanikumar, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband in
F.C.A.Nos.123 and 124 of 2021 and Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 and the
petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021.
2. The parties and lis involved in all the aforesaid four matters are
one and the same, the aforesaid two appeals and two criminal revision
cases were heard together and disposed of by way of this common
judgment.
3. F.C.A.No.123 of 2021 is filed by the wife against the common
order dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.P.No.546 of 2019 filed by the
husband under Section 13 (i) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (for short 'the act') to grant the decree of divorce by dissolving the
marriage and F.C.A.No.124 of 2021 is filed by the wife against the order
dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.P.No.751 of 2012 filed under Section 10 of
the Act for judicial separation. The wife along with two children
preferred Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 against the order dated 19.07.2021
passed in M.C.No.248 of 2012 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C to
enhance the monthly maintenance from Rs.50,000/- each to Rs.1,00,000/-
each to both the children. Husband preferred Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021 to
set aside the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in M.C.No.248 of 2012.
Wife also filed O.P.No.759 of 2012 under Section 7 of the Guardian and
Wards Act to declare the wife as the permanent guardian of the two
children. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Family
Court') has passed a common order in the aforesaid four petitions.
4. The learned Family Court held that since daughter attained
majority, the arrears of maintenance of daughter shall be deposited by the
husband within a period of four months into her Bank Account to be
furnished by the wife. The monthly maintenance of son shall be
deposited by the Husband into the Bank Account of son on or before 5th
of every month. The arrears of maintenance to be paid to son shall be
deposited within a period of four months in to the Bank Account of the
son by husband. Wife was directed to furnish the Bank Account details
of the children to the husband within one week from the date of the said
common order.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order in granting decree of divorce in
O.P.No.546 of 2019, wife preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.123 of
2021. Likewise, challenging the order dated 19.07.2021 dismissing
O.P.No.751 of 2012 filed by wife seeking judicial separation, wife
preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.124 of 2021. Challenging the order
awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month each to the children
towards maintenance, husband filed Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021. Seeking
enhancement of maintenance awarded to the children of Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.1,00,000/-, wife and children filed Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022.
FACTS:-
6. To avoid inconvenience, parties hereinafter are referred to as wife,
husband and children.
7. Wife and husband knew each other while they are prosecuting
MBBS in Guntur Medical College during the year 1992-1997.
According to the wife, husband proposed the said marriage. Ultimately
they approached their respective parents and their love-cum arranged
marriage was performed on 22.05.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs.
They are highly qualified doctors. They got married with high ambition.
The said marriage was consummated. They were blessed with a daughter
namely Ms. Ganga Sindhu on 05.08.2001 and a son namely Master
Sreekar on 25.04.2007.
8. Wife is working as a consultant fertility specialist and husband is
working as a consultant Endocrinologist in Kamineni Hospital, Kingkoti
and LB Nagar branches. Though the marriage of wife and husband is a
love-cum-arranged marriage; right from the beginning, there were
disputes between them. The said aspects were clearly mentioned by both
the wife and husband in their respective petitions. Wife also attempted to
commit suicide. Thereafter, her parents, her cousin Mr. Ramu and uncle
Mr.Suryadevara Rajendra advised her to take treatment for suicidal
tendency. In one case, wife examined herself as PW.1 and husband
himself as RW.1. The wife and husband narrated the entire incidents
right from the marriage, even before the marriage. But the fact remains
that there were misunderstandings between them right from the marriage.
9. It is also not in dispute that both of them had disputes while they
were in U.K till 2011. Thereafter, they shifted to Hyderabad in May,
2011. Even after returning to Hyderabad, there is no change in the
attitude of both the parties.
10. According to husband, wife along with children moved away from
matrimonial home on 29.05.2012 and therefore, it is the date of
separation. According to wife, she was necked out from the matrimonial
home on the said date. Hence, she has filed a petition vide O.P.No.751 of
2012 on 11.06.2012 seeking judicial separation and for recovery of
Rs.2,03,75,098/- towards expenses for engagement, marriage and for
household articles.
11. Wife has also filed a petition vide O.P.No.759 of 2012 on
11.06.2012 itself under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
to declare her as permanent guardian of her two children and she has also
filed M.C.No.248 of 2012 to enhance the maintenance to Rs.1,00,000/-
per month from Rs.50,000/- per month to each of the children.
12. Wife has also filed a complaint against the husband and the same
was registered as a case in Crime No.454 of 2012 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act
(for short 'the D.P.Act'). On completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer, laid charge sheet against the husband and his
parents. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.2218 of 2019 (old
C.C.No.343 of 2013). The parents of husband obtained Anticipatory Bail
and wife had filed a petition for cancellation of the said Bail.
13. As discussed supra, wife filed the aforesaid O.P.No.751 of 2012
against the husband seeking judicial separation, whereas the husband has
filed a petition vide O.P.No.546 of 2019 against the wife seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion.
Thus, both of them are not interested to lead matrimonial life.
14. It is also relevant to note that during pendency of the aforesaid
proceedings, learned Family Court conducted conciliation and interacted
with wife, husband and children. But parties failed to come to an
understanding.
15. It is apt to note that the learned Family Court granted visitation
rights to the husband in I.A.No.471 of 2015 and against which wife filed
a revision. This Court also conducted counseling, which was
unsuccessful. Wife has filed a petition to refer the matter to mediation.
Sri Erranki Phanikumar, learned counsel appearing for the husband, on
instructions, submitted that the husband is not interested in any mediation
proceedings. Therefore, without consent of the husband, this Court
cannot refer the matter to the mediation.
16. Thus, both wife and husband are not interested in leading marital
life. Both of them are highly qualified doctors and even perusal of record
would reveal that their daughter was pursuing Bachelor Course in USA
and their son is 16 years old at present. Husband has filed Contempt Case
against wife alleging willful and deliberate violation of orders granting
visitation rights. A perusal of the record would reveal that husband has
filed suit vide O.S.No.797 of 2016 against wife seeking damages. The
aforesaid facts would reveal that there is restrained relationship between
wife and husband.
17. Both the wife and husband made serious allegations against each
other. According to the wife, husband is having suspicious mind, he used
to suspect her fidelity. He suspected that wife maintained illicit relation
with the driver. She tried to commit suicide. They have narrated the
entire facts and several incidents from the date of marriage. The said
facts and the averments in the aforesaid petitions, counters and
depositions would reveal that there is a strained relationship between
wife and husband. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings,
husband reported that there is no possibility of settlement as he is not
interested in settlement and also in referring the matter to the mediation.
Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion of the parties.
18. A perusal of the pleadings and depositions of wife would reveal
that she never thought of ending her relationship with her husband prior
to filing the cases in 2012. A meeting was held for mediation at Sailing
Club, Secunderabad along with one Mr. Surya Mohan, her husband and
her father. She filed the e-mails in respect of the said meeting under
Ex.R.18. The said meeting failed in reaching any consensus. Both the
wife and husband are not interested in leading marital life.
19. According to the wife her husband did not pay any amount for
their children studies, coaching, hobbies and towards their welfare etc.
Though husband has filed a petition seeking visitation rights, he has not
spent any amount for their needs and he did not even pay maintenance to
the wife. It is the specific case of the husband that though Court granted
visitation rights, wife did not allow him to avail the same. Thus, she has
violated the orders of visitation rights granted by the Family Court as
well as this Court. Therefore, husband has filed a contempt case.
20. A perusal of the record would also reveal that parents of wife are
not willing for their marriage right from the beginning and there is a
constant interference in the matrimonial life of wife and husband by the
parents of the wife.
21. Husband contended that Jewellery was presented by his parents at
the time of marriage and he has also filed photos and videos in respect of
the same. On the other hand, wife deposed that she does not remember
of jewellery presented to her either in the engagement or in the marriage,
as reflected in the photos and videos.
22. As discussed supra, though their marriage was performed in the
year 1997, they have filed the aforesaid applications in the year 2012 and
one application vide O.P.No.546 of 2019 (originally instituted in 2014)
by the husband in the year 2014. Though the wife contended that when
she lived with her in-laws, they have harassed her mentally and
physically, but, she failed to prove the same producing any evidence.
She neither filed any complaint against her husband nor against her in-
laws. Husband also contended that as the wife and her parents threatened
him on 09.06.1998, he had lodged a complaint (Ex.P11 in O.P.No.546 of
2019) on 10.06.1998, but no action was taken on the same.
23. Wife also alleged that husband used to harass and punish both the
children for every small mistake and that he used to hang them by
holding their legs, which resulted in bleeding from mouth, but she failed
to prove the same by producing legally acceptable evidence. In fact
hanging children by holding legs by a highly qualified Doctor and
bleeding from mouth is improbable. Moreover, burden lies on the wife
to prove the said allegations by producing oral and documentary
evidence, but she failed to prove the same and also failed to discharge the
said burden.
24. As discussed supra, gap developed between the wife and husband,
but they did not take any steps to fill the said gap. Counseling conducted
by the Family Court and this Court ended in failure and the parties are
not in a position to settle the issues amicably. The wife also alleged that
husband subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically, due to
which she went into depression. The said allegation is contrary to the
evidence available on record.
25. In a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C vide M.C.No.248 of
2012, the wife admitted that she has attained 10th Rank in P.G
Examination. Therefore, the said allegation made by the wife that due to
the harassment meted out by the husband, she went into depression
appears to be improbable. The said aspect was also considered by the
learned Family Court in the impugned common order. Wife has also
made serious allegations against the Husband that he has forced her to
abort her pregnancy, but she failed to produce any evidence either oral or
documentary.
26. Husband also made serious allegations against the wife that at the
instance of wife, his daughter abused him in most filthy language, but he
failed to elicit the same from the wife during her cross examination. He
has also made a serious allegation that the words used by wife against
him are so serious mental health issues, which specifically require
medical certification, to term him in such way. The wife termed him as
psychic patient and even went to the extent of terming him of having split
personality, which is a serious medical condition. But she has not
produced any evidence to prove the same. The said incidents and
allegations made by them against each other lead to gap between them
and there is no possibility of leading their marital life. Despite blessed
with two children, there was no change in the attitude of wife and
husband. Wife also made a serious allegation against her husband that
husband hit her head to wall on small issues on 21.05.2010, but there was
no medical record about that incident and the same was not informed to
any person. Another incident narrated by wife i.e., hitting her head to
wall by the husband on 13.07.2010. For that incident, the wife produced
medical record dated 02.08.2010, under Ex.R12, which was marked in
O.P.No.546 of 2019. A letter was issued by Dr. Sian Morgan to Bridge
End Surgery unit at Chester-le-Street, referring the wife for further
opinion. Relying on Ex.R12, wife contended that she was subjected to
physical cruelty by the husband.
27. A perusal of the record also would reveal that both wife and
husband relocated to India on 06.05.2011 and settled down in Hyderabad.
The wife mentioned about the cruelty of husband in Hyderabad referring
an incident on 08.06.2011 in which she sustained injury to her index
finger and another incident of hitting her mouth in car, but she did not
mention the details of the said incident. The wife further referred that the
husband throttled her neck and twisted her hand in September, 2011 and
bent her index finger on 12.10.2011 resulting in dislocation of bone, on
next day i.e., 13.10.2011, she was necked out of the house and she was
not allowed to join his company and the children for six weeks. Further,
wife has placed reliance on Ex.R9, SMS chats between the parties, i.e.,
R10, R11, R19, R28, R31, R34, R35 and Ex.P26 to P37 E-mails.
28. Learned Family Court in paragraph No.25 (xxiii) and (xxxia)
reproduced some of the said chats/SMS messages. On consideration of
the said messages, the learned Family Court gave a specific finding that
there is a strained relation between both wife and husband and upon
perusal of the entire oral and documentary, learned Family Court also
gave a specific finding that wife failed to prove her claim on judicial
separation and that husband is not entitled for recovery of articles as
claimed by him.
29. Upon considering the necessities of children and also earning
capacity of both the parties, the learned Family Court directed to file the
affidavits as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Rajnesh vs Neha and another 1. They have filed affidavits accordingly.
Learned Family Court also considered the documents filed by the parties
to show the necessities and expenses of the children and also the earning
capacity of the parties. On consideration of the entire evidence, learned
Family Court held that husband has to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per
month per child towards maintenance.
30. Admittedly daughter Ms. Gangana Sindu attained majority and she
is pursuing her studies in USA. Boy is 16 years old and he is also
pursuing his studies. Therefore, the boy is entitled for maintenance of
Rs.50,000/- per month towards his expenses. On consideration of entire
evidence, learned Family Court dismissed O.P No.751 of 2012 filed by
wife seeking judicial separation and allowed O.P.No.759 of 2012 filed by
wife to declare her as a permanent guardian to both the children, allowed
M.C.No.248 of 2012 in part and allowed O.P.No.546 of 2019 filed by
husband seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between
them. The aforesaid common order is a reasoned and well founded.
AIR 2021 SC 569
Both wife and husband failed to make out any case to interfere with the
said common order.
31. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for wife and
children and Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
husband have made their respective submissions extensively attacking
the common order. But as discussed supra, learned Family Court upon
considering the entire evidence rightly came to the conclusion in all the
four petitions mentioned supra.
32. A perusal of record would reveal that there were disputes between
wife and husband right from the marriage. Wife has attempted to commit
suicide once. Therefore, there was gap between them. They both failed
to fill the gap between themselves to lead marital life happily.
Subsequently, the incidents narrated by both wife and husband would
reveal that even though they went to USA and UK, there is no change in
the attitude of both the parties. After returning to India in the year 2011
also there is no change in the attitude of both the parties. Thus, gap
between them was developed and none of them have initiated proper
steps to settle the issues between themselves amicably to lead marital life
and none of them have filed any petition seeking restitution of conjugal
rights.
33. Ultimately, wife filed two petitions i.e., O.P.No.751 of 2012
seeking judicial separation and O.P.No.759 of 2012 to declare her as a
permanent guardian to both the children and wife along with children
filed M.C.No.248 of 2012 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking
maintenance. All these petitions pertain to the year 2012. Husband
entered his appearance filed counters and filed O.P.No.546 of 2019 to
grant divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty and
desertion. He has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.797 of 2016 against wife
for damages.
34. As discussed supra, on the complaint lodged by the wife, police
registered a Criminal Case against the husband for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A,325, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. He got bail and she
has filed an application seeking cancellation of the said bail. He has filed
a Contempt Case against the wife alleging willful and deliberate violation
of the visitation rights granted to him.
35. The said facts would reveal that there is a strained relationship
between wife and husband. Despite conducting conciliation by the
learned Family Court, and by this Court, there is no possibility of reunion
of the parties. On consideration of the said aspects, learned Family Court
dissolved the marriage of both the parties, held on 22.05.1997 by
granting decree of divorce. There is no error in it. Therefore, we are also
of the view that there is no possibility of reunion of both the parties
36. Husband filed Crl.R.C.No.656 of 2021 challenging the order
passed by the learned Family Court awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/-
per month per child and he wants to pay only Rs.15,000/- per month
which is unsustainable since the boy is studying in CHIREC International
School, Hyderabad and he needs Rs.50,000/- per month from father. His
needs are explained by producing supporting documents. Hence, the
Revision Case filed by the husband to reduce the maintenance granted to
the children is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
37. Likewise, wife and children filed Crl.R.C.No.159 of 2022 claiming
to enhance the quantum of maintenance granted by the learned Family
Court from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the paying
capacity of the husband and expenditure of the son only learned Family
Court granted the said amount. It is a reasoned order. There is no error
and hence no interference is warranted. Therefore, the said Revision
Case is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
38. The learned Family Court upon considering the entire evidence
oral and documentary granted decree of divorce. Therefore,
F.C.A.No.123 of 2021 filed by wife and F.C.A.No.124 of 2021 filed by
wife are liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
39. In the result, F.C.A.No.123 and 124 of 2021, Crl.R.C.Nos.656 of
2021 and 159 of 2022 are dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
_________________________
JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
Date: 07.06.2024
VSU/PVT
