S.Raghuadh vs S.Sheela Pallavi
2024 Latest Caselaw 2135 Tel

Telangana High Court

S.Raghuadh vs S.Sheela Pallavi on 7 June, 2024

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K.Lakshman, Juvvadi Sridevi

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                        AND
      THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.318 OF 2012


JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel

for the appellant and Ms.Nishitha, learned counsel

representing Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned counsel for

the respondent.

2. Challenging the order and decree, dated

01.09.2012 in F.C.O.P.No.336 of 2010 passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, the

appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.

3. The appellant has filed a petition under Section

13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the

respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the

ground of cruelty;

(i) He has contended that his marriage with the

respondent was solemnized on 29.08.2004 as per Hindu

rites and customs at Shankermutt, Nallakunta,

Hyderabad, and;

                                                              KL,J&JS,J
                                                         fca_318_2012




     (ii)     It is an arranged marriage;

     (iii)    He lost his father and is living with his mother

and sister;

     (iv)     His sister got married about twelve years ago

and she is residing separately at Habsiguda;

(v) The marriage of the appellant with the

respondent was consummated and they were blessed with

a female child on 20.04.2006;

(vi) The respondent also lost her father;

(vii) At the time of marriage, the respondent is living

with her mother and two brothers namely Sridhar and

Srikanth. Mr.D.Bhaskaram, paternal uncle of respondent

performed her marriage with the appellant;

(viii) Immediately after the marriage, the respondent

joined THE company of the appellant at Venkatapuram,

Alwal, Hyderabad, where the appellant used to reside

along with his mother;

(ix) He was working in the company called A.D.P.

at Somajiguda, Hyderabad;

(x) The respondent is highly aggressive, cruel,

adamant, dominant and sadistic in nature, nagging/lier

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

liar and at times with perverse unusual and abnormal

behavior;

(xi) Though she studied MBA, she never behaved like

an educated person, never tried to understand the

situations and she always used to shout louder to the peak

of her voice;

(xii) Thus, she caused anxiety and always shouts

at the appellant and everybody present at that time.

(xiii) The appellant is soft spoken;

(xiv) The respondent instigated her two brothers and

her mother. She is also jealous;

(xv) She cannot digest anybody living comfortably.

(xvi) She used to threaten the appellant and his

mother that she will sent them to jail;

(xvii) Right from the beginning, she insisted the

appellant to keep his mother away.

(xviii) She insulted the appellant in several ways in

public and before everybody on several occasions i.e.,

during her brother's engagement in September, 2004 and

when their daughter was hospitalized. Thus, her attitude

was cruel and sadistic always;

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

(xix) She failed to discharge her duty as a dutiful

wife;

(xx) She never cooked food to him and his mother;

(xxi) The appellant spent starving nights on return

from office;

(xxii) She used to abuse the appellant and his

mother in filthy and unparliamentarily language and she

also threatened the appellant that she would commit

suicide and made attempts;

(xxiii) She also bore grudge against his sister and

brother-in-law, Harikiran;

(xxiv) In the month of February, 2008,

reconciliation meeting was held, wherein brothers of

respondent, her mother and elders of petitioner i.e., uncle

and grandfather, were present. In the said meeting, it was

decided that the appellant shall take a separate house and

keep his mother separate and till such accommodation is

settled, the respondent should stay with her parents and

the respondent's brothers shall not interfere with the

appellant's life;

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

(xxv) The respondent left her parents house.

Meanwhile, in the month of March, 2008, the appellant

had also identified a house in Alwal and paid two months

rent as advance;

(xxvi) He also purchased articles to establish a

family;

(xxvii) On 08.03.2008, the appellant's sister came to

see her mother and to settle her separately;

(xxviii) In the month of February, 2008, the

respondent left the house of the appellant warning him

and took away all the gold ornaments, clothes etc. and

treated them that she will see the appellant only in the

Court;

(xxix) She had lodged a complaint with Alwal Police,

who in turn called both of them for counselling.

(xxx) The respondent's brother raised hand and also

beat the appellant before the police and abused him in

filthy language;

(xxxi) On 22.03.2008, the police under the guise of

counselling in collusion with respondent's brother forcibly

obtained signatures on the letter written by the

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

respondent's brother that he will take care of the

respondent properly;

(xxxii) Thus, the respondent subjected him to

cruelty and also deserted him;

(xxxiii) Despite best efforts, she did not join his

company;

(xxxiv) Therefore, the appellant got issued legal

notice, dated 29.04.2008 to the respondent;

(xxxv) On receipt of the same, she has sent goondas

and anti social element i.e., 1) Srinivas Reddy 2)

Dhananjaya Reddy 3) Shivakumar Reddy and 4) Danam

Reddy to his house, who claimed that they are close

associates of Sri Gaddar and they forcibly dropped the

respondent into their house. From then, the appellant's

life became miserable and he was unable to bear the

torture;

(xxxvi) On 31.03.2008, appellant's mother met with

an accident and she was hospitalized in KIMS for one

week. In November, 2008, respondent's brother along with

goondas went to work place of the appellant, raised

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

slogans and abused him in filthy language and demanded

for his removal;

(xxxvii) He had lodged a complaint with police

Panjagutta;

(xxxviii) The respondent is highly suspicious and

insisted that he shall not visit his mother or look after her

needs;

(xxxix) On 08.10.2008 both the appellant and the

respondent along with their kid went to Basara temple to

perform akshrabhayasam to their daughter. On return

from Basara, the appellant wanted to go to his mother

along with their daughter. Respondent rashly pushed

down the appellant, slapped her daughter and abused the

appellant in filthy and unparliamentarily language.

(xl) She has lodged a complaint against the

appellant, his mother, sister and brother-in-law;

(xli) The appellant was arrested and spent two

nights in the police station and later he was sent to

Cherlapally jail;

(xlii) They have also made false allegations;

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

(xliii) The respondent with the assistance of her

brothers got published in all the news papers including

Eenadu, Andhra Jyothi and got the same scrolled in TV-9

and TV-5 as if the appellant is a criminal. The appellant

was released on bail after two days;

(xliv) Thereafter also, the respondent and her

brother along with Goondas went to work place of the

appellant and abused him in filthy and unparliamentarily

language;

(xlv) Thus, the respondent abused him and

subjected him to cruelty.

4. Respondent filed counter denying the

allegations made against her. However, she has admitted

the marriage and that she was blessed with a female child

on 20.04.2006. She has also admitted about filing of

D.V.C.No.11 of 2008.

(i) According to her, she never harassed the

appellant as alleged by him;

(ii) In fact, the respondent always taken care of her

child and mother-in-law with utmost care and devotion

and attending upon them all their necessities;

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

(iii) She is also soft spoken, mild and very obedient.

Even then, the appellant made all false and baseless

allegations only to file the present application and to get

rid of her;

(iv) The appellant's sister P.Jyothi and her

husband P.Kiran instigated the appellant and harassed

her and in order to prevent the respondent, lodged a

complaint to the police;

(v) The appellant's uncle Mr.Satyanarayana

intervened into the matter and called the family members

of the respondent, tendered apology assured them that

such acts will not be repeated and the respondent would

be looked after properly in future. But, there was no

change in the attitude of the appellant and his family

members;

(vi) On 16.03.2008, two years old baby of the

respondent and appellant was suffering from ill-health and

respondent tried to contact appellant over phone, but he

did not respond. Therefore, the respondent went to her

matrimonial house and upon knocking the door, the

appellant opened the door. Immediately on seeing her, he

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

pulled her by holding her hair and banged her head to the

wall on the veranda and started abusing her in filthy

language. The respondent's mother-in-law and sister-in-

law and brother-in-law were watching the incident from

inside the house. After her brother reached, one of the

resident by name Srinivasa Murthy narrated the incident

to her brother and advised her to lodge a complaint with

police;

(vii) The appellant has executed a letter, dated

22.03.2008 voluntarily. The said letter was executed in

the presence of his Advocate, his brother-in-law and other

relatives. They are also signatories to the said letter.

Thus, according to the respondent, she never harassed the

appellant as alleged by him.

5. To prove the allegation of cruelty, the appellant

examined himself as P.W.1 and his brother as P.W.2 close

relative as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. To

disprove the said allegation, the respondent examined

herself as R.W.1 and her brother as R.W.2. But, no

documents were marked on her behalf.

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

6. On consideration of entire evidence both oral

and documentary, the learned Judge, Family Court,

Secunderabad, vide order, dated 01.09.2012, dismissed

F.C.O.P.No.336 of 2010 filed by the appellant-husband

holding that the appellant failed to prove the cruelty.

7. It is not in dipsute that the marriage of the

appellant with the respondent was performed on

29.08.2004 and it is an arranged marriage. The said

marriage was consummated and they were blessed with a

baby girl on 20.04.2006. At present, she is aged about 19

years.

8. According to the appellant, the respondent

resorted to the following cruel acts:

(i) Abusing the appellant and her mother/family members in filthy language before the relatives and public.

(ii) Ill treating the husband and guests.

(iii) Insulting the appellant and physically assaulting him.

(iv) Filing false criminal cases arresting the appellant, his family members and sending them to jail.

(v) Canvassing ill about the appellant or blaming the appellant with false allegations to attract the support of neighbours.

(vi) Unnecessary involvement of brothers of respondent in the marital life on one pretext or the other.

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

(vii) Filing false case, and insulting the appellant at his work place and demand for his removal.

(viii) Threatening the appellant to commit suicide and circulating the same.

(ix) separating the appellant from his mother.

(x) Not cooking food and discharging her duties as a wife and dissatisfied with the appellant and continuing the cruelty even after separation of his mother.

9. As discussed supra, to prove the said case, he

has examined himself as P.W.1, his brother as P.W.2 close

relative as P.W.3. It is also not in dispute that she has

lodged a complaint with police for the offence under

Section 498-A IPC against the appellant and his family

members. Mere filing of complaint against the appellant-

husband by the respondent-wife does not amount to

cruelty. When the appellant-husband harassed his wife,

she has every right to lodge a complaint. When the

appellant is not maintaining herself and her daughter, the

respondent has filed a petition seeking maintenance. It

does not amount to cruelty as alleged by the appellant.

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

10. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 1

mentioned certain acts as cruel acts which are only

illustrative but not exhaustive. Relevant paragarphs are

extracted below:

"Hon'ble Apex Court drawing insights from English, American, Canadian, and Australian cases, has established that no universal standard can be universally prescribed to guide judgments on mental cruelty. However, the Court has outlined specific instances, illustrative but not exhaustive, that constitute mental cruelty. It emphasizes that the entirety of married life should be assessed, and isolated instances over a span of years would not qualify as cruelty. for an act to be deemed mentally cruel, it must persist over a significant period, leading to a deteriorated relationship where living together becomes extremely challenging for the wronged party due to the acts and behavior of the spouse. Mere trivial irritations, day-to-day quarrels, and the normal wear and tear of married life are insufficient grounds for granting a divorce based on mental cruelty.

"Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in our definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs persons to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.

98. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static. It is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. what may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty

(2007) 4 SCC 511

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-

jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.

99. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instance of human behavior 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 lock 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 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 fo the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, sustained and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect in difference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

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 irritation, 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 of knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent of 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 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. "

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

11. The same were reiterated in Naveen Kohli v.

Neelu Kohli 2

12. In V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat 3 , the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

"16. Mental cruelty in Section 13 (1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise or the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to be context in which they were made."

13. As discussed supra, though the appellant has

made several allegations that the respondent and her

brother along with goondas came to the work place and

abused him in filthy and unparliamentarily language, he

AIR 2006 SC 1675

(1994) 1 SCC 337

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

failed to examine any witness to prove the same. Though

he alleged that the respondent has sent the aforesaid four

persons claiming to be close associates of Sri. Gaddar, he

has not examined anyone to prove the same. He has also

made serious allegation that the respondent with the

assistance of her brother got published in all the

newspapers including Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi; that the

appellant is a criminal. But, according to the respondent,

she never gave information / interview to both print and

electronic media people. Therefore, the appellant cannot

blame the respondent.

14. It is also alleged by the appellant that the

respondent, her mother and brother abused him, his

mother, brother-in-law and sister in filthy language, but he

failed to prove the same by examining any of the witness,

including his mother. He failed to examine his maternal

uncle i.e., Satyanarayna Murthy, who is mediator. It is

also alleged by the appellant that in police station he was

forced to write letter (Ex.A.2). But, however, he has

admitted that during counselling conducted by the police

at Alwal police station, the appellant (P.W.1), Harikiran,

KL,J&JS,J fca_318_2012

his brother-in-law were present and their signatures were

obtained by force. His signature was obtained. P.W.1 had

also admitted that they have not issued any notice to him

or respondent that his signatures were obtained by force

and that condition in Ex.A.2 are not binding on him.

Therefore, he cannot make bald allegations that his

signature was obtained on white papers. He has to plead

and prove the same by producing cogent evidence.

15. As discussed supra, mere lodging of complaint

for the offence under Section 498-A IPC filing an

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking

maintenance, DVC does not amount to cruelty.

16. Disputes between the appellant and the

respondent are trivial in nature. They cannot be termed as

cruel acts. Appellant cannot seek decree of divorce on the

said allegations/issues.

17. As discussed supra, the allegations made by

the appellant does not amount to cruelty. Admittedly, they

were blessed with a child on 20.04.2006 and she is now

aged about 19 years.

KL,J & JS,J fca_318_2012

18. On consideration of entire evidence both oral

and documentary, the learned Judge, Family Court,

Secunderabad dismissed the aforesaid O.P. It is a

reasoned order, well founded and it does not require

interference by this Court in the present appeal.

19. Accordingly, the Family Court Appeal is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

appeal shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

_______________________________ JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

Date :07.06.2024

YVL