Telangana High Court
Shetty Mruthyunjaya Rao vs Smt. Shetty Saritha on 7 June, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.233 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri Grandhi Gopala Krishna Murthy,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the
record.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and
decree dated 29.12.2017 in O.P.No.1151 of 2012 passed by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, the
appellant-husband preferred the present appeal. The
appellant-husband filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1151 of 2012
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read
with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, contending
as follows;
i) The appellant marriage with the respondent was
performed on 15.05.2011 at Rajadhani Gardens Function
Hall, Kothapet, Hyderabad, as per Hindu Rites and Customs
and it is an arranged marriage.
ii) Before the said marriage, the appellant used to stay in
U.S.A.
iii) He married in the year 2003 in India.
iv) After the marriage, appellant and his first wife left to
U.S.A. Later, the appellant was constrained to leave U.S.A. as
his mother fell sick.
v) But unfortunately his first wife who got employed in
U.S.A. in a good company, was earning very well, refused to
come back to India.
vi) Ultimately, it led to irretrievable breakdown of the
marriage and they sought divorce.
Accordingly, they have obtained divorce with mutual
consent on 18.06.2008. Thus, it is appellant's second
marriage.
vii) The appellant explained about his first marriage, divorce
obtained to the respondent before marriage and she has
accepted.
viii) Then only, the aforesaid marriage was solemnized on
15.05.2011.
ix) After the marriage, nuptial ceremony was arranged.
x) The said nuptial ceremony was a failure as the
respondent did not cooperate with the appellant for
consummation of the said marriage.
xi) She avoided the conjugal life on one or other pretext.
xii) The said fact was brought to the notice of her father.
xiii) There was no proper cooperation from him and also to
the respondent, which led to biological inconvenience to the
appellant herein.
xiv) The basic purpose of marriage has been defeated
deliberately by the respondent. The respondent after marriage
stayed in the matrimonial home hardly for thirty to forty days.
xv) She constantly demanded the appellant to leave his
parents house and put up separate house.
xvi) The appellant did not agree for the same.
xvii) She used to abuse him and his family members in filthy
and un-parliamentary language.
xviii) She is very rigid on her own stand and she doesn't listen
to anybody.
xix) She is a woman with different outlook and her acts are
always to defame the appellant and his parents.
xx) She has a habit of lying for even small things.
xxi) While she was in the house of the appellant, she always
used to either sleep or watch T.V. Thus, she never cooperated
with the appellant in leading conjugal life.
xxii) As per the tradition, a newly wedded bride should not
stay in the house of parents-in-law in the Hindu calendar
month "Ashadam", therefore, on 26.06.2011 the respondent's
father took her to his house.
xxiii) While going to her house respondent took all her
ornaments presented by her father in the marriage along with
her belongings.
xxiv) After completion of Ashadam month, appellant went to
her parents' house on 10.08.2011 to bring her back for the
Shravanapatti formality.
xxv) Respondent and her father putforth the illegal demand
to the appellant to purchase an independent bungalow or lead
a separate life leaving his parents alone.
xxvi) He tried to convince the respondent and her father
that it is not proper for the appellant to leave his old aged
parents more particularly his mother who is suffering with
serious old age ailments, his father is also a senior advocate
and due to ill health of his mother, his father is not practicing
seriously.
xxvii) The said facts were not understood by either
respondent or by her parents and there is no change in their
attitude.
xxviii) The respondent used to quarrel with the appellant
and his parents always.
xxix) The respondent went to her parent's house on
13.08.2011 on the eve of Rakhi festival and she did not turn
up.
xxx) The maternal grandfather of the appellant expired on
11.11.2011 at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The said fact was
informed to the respondent and her father. Though, they
stayed at a distance of 5 kilometers from the house of
appellant, they did not come in time.
xxxi) On 24.11.2011, respondent and her father came to
appellant's house and at that particular point of time, a close
relative of the appellant was present.
xxxii) They abused the parents of the appellant in filthy
and unparliamentary language.
xxxiii) They have demanded to stay in a separate house,
otherwise, they will lodge a case against the appellant and his
parents for dowry harassment.
xxxiv) The respondent insulted the appellant saying that
even after working in U.S.A. for 11 years, he is still living in a
two bedroom flat which belongs to his parents.
xxxv) He always acts as a puppet in the hands of his
parents.
xxxvi) She removed her 'Mangalasutram' and threw on
the appellant and left the house on 24.11.2011.
xxxvii) Since then, she is staying in her parents' house.
xxxviii) On 18.02.2012, Sri A.Balaiah, President of Sagara
Sangam called the appellant to the Sangam and he tried to
resolve the disputes. All the efforts made by the said Balaiah
and Sangam went in vain. In fact, they agreed for settlement
of the issue after discussing with father of the respondent
after the marriage of brother of respondent.
xxxix) Surprisingly, on 16.05.2012, appellant received a
notice from the said Balaiah dated 14.05.2011 directing the
appellant to attend the meeting on 20.05.2011. The appellant
sent a reply requesting the said Sangam to furnish a copy of
the complaint lodged by the respondent and expressed his
inability to attend the meeting. On 19.05.2012 on receipt of
his letter, the said Sangam sent copy of the complaint to him
and postponed the meeting.
3. The father of the respondent Sri M.Yadaiah came in his
car bearing No.AP29S 1817 along with an Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police from Women Police Station, Saroornagar,
and a Constable from Madhapur Police Station to the office of
appellant at Ayyappa Society, Madhapur and they took him to
Women Police Station, Saroornagar at 01:30 PM. They have
requested the appellant and his father to wait in the Police
Station to enable the elders of the Sagara Sangam.
i. The respondent, her father, younger brother Mr.Sirish
along with their Advocate were present in the Police Station.
They have registered a case in crime No.73 of 2012 against
the appellant and his parents for the offence under Section
498-A of Indian Penal Code and arrested him on 19.05.2012
late in the night and he was kept in Men's Police Station,
Saroornagar, on that night.
ii. Next day on 20.05.2012 Sunday afternoon, he was
produced before the Magistrate, who in turn, remanded the
appellant for judicial custody for a period of 14 days.
iii. He was sent to Cherlapally Central Prison. On
21.05.2012 he was released on bail.
iv. He came to know about the pregnancy of the respondent
only on going through the contents of the said complaint.
v. In fact, it was a shock to him.
vi. She also lodged a complaint against the appellant under
Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Thus, the respondent
subjected the appellant to cruelty.
4. Respondent has filed counter denying the said
allegations.
i. She never subjected the appellant to cruelty. In
fact, the appellant and his parents continuously
demanded to bring gold bangles and silver articles and
also additional dowry.
ii. After going to the matrimonial home, appellant
and his parents harassed the respondent both mentally
and physically.
iii. The appellant is a Software Engineer and he used
to come home late in the night and sleep away
separately from the respondent by saying he does not
want to continue conjugal life with her.
iv. She reported the said fact to her mother-in-law
who did not care and on the other hand, she advised the
respondent to keep quite, otherwise they will neck her
out of the house.
v. Thus, her in-laws continuously harassed her to
bring gold bangles and silver articles.
vi. She got pregnant.
vii. Her in-laws took her to Vijaya Diagnostic Centre,
Himayatnagar, on 27.06.2011 where HIV test was
conducted. Her in-laws took her to Secunderabad
Nursing Home on 26.07.2011 for medical examination,
where the pregnancy was forcibly removed. All the
expenses are thrown on the head of her father.
viii. At the time of Rakhi festival, her mother-in-law did
not allow her to go to her brother to tie Rakhi and she
picked up a big quarrel and beat her.
ix. Her husband and father-in-law supported her
mother-in-law and abused her in filthy and
unparliamentary language. Finally, she was sent to her
parents' house for Dasara and thereafter her husband
did not take her back.
x. She made several efforts to join the society of the
appellant.
xi. Her father also made all the efforts to pacify the
issue.
xii. The caste elders including Mr.Balaiah also made
all the efforts to pacify the issues. But they could not
succeed due to the adamant attitude of appellant and
his father. Therefore, she was compelled to approach
women police station by way of lodging a complaint. She
was also compelled to file D.V.C.
5. To prove the said cruelty, appellant-husband had
examined himself as PW-1, his father as PW-2 and his driver
as PW-3. He has filed Exs.P-1 to P-10 documents.
6. To disprove the said cruelty, respondent examined
herself as RW-1, her father as RW-2, Doctor who treated her
as RW-3 and her cousin as RW-4. She has also filed Exs.R1
to R4.
7. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and
documentary vide impugned order dated 29.12.2017, the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad dismissed
the O.P.No.1151 of 2012 filed by the husband holding that
the appellant failed to prove the cruelty.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-
husband had preferred the present appeal contending that
the learned Family Court failed to consider that the
respondent-wife stayed with the appellant-husband in his
house only for thirty to forty days. She never cooperated with
him in consummation of marriage. Therefore, due to non
cooperation of the respondent, the marriage was not
consummated. She has lodged a complaint against the
appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and
sent him to jail. She has also filed D.V.C. against him. The
said C.C.No.221 of 2012 was ended in acquittal and she did
not prefer any appeal. Vide order dated 19.09.2016 in
D.V.C.No.14 of 2013, learned Magistrate directed the
appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month
to the respondent towards interim maintenance from the date
of filing of the D.V.C. He was also directed to pay the arrears
of maintenance within one month. He was further directed to
pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- within one month and
costs of Rs.10,000/-.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has
preferred an appeal vide criminal appeal No.812 of 2016. Vide
order dated 13.03.2019, learned appellate Court allowed the
said order by setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 in
D.V.C.No.14 of 2013. The respondent preferred a revision
vide Crl.R.C.No.443 of 2019 and the same was also dismissed
on 07.09.2022. Thus, the respondent implicated the
petitioner in the aforesaid criminal cases. Thus, respondent
subjected him to cruel acts.
10. The appellant (PW-1) during cross examination
categorically admitted that he lived with the respondent after
marriage for about 30 to 40 days. He has further admitted
that on nuptial ceremony there was no consummation as
respondent suffered with pain due to her menstrual period.
After 15 days of marriage, he and respondent had
consummation. Initially he informed about her non-
cooperation for consummation to his parents and her father.
However, he denied a suggestion that unless he received the
demands he kept himself away from the respondent, not
cooperated for sexual intercourse. He used to come late
nights. He knew about the pregnancy confirmation of the
respondent before the Station House Officer, Women Police
Station, Saroornagar on 19.05.2012. Lastly, the respondent
visited his residence along with her father and brother,
namely, Sirish on 24.11.2011 and left on the same day, after
she fought with his family. Appellant and his parents went to
the residence of the respondent to bring her back after
Ashadam on 10.08.2011. He has denied a suggestion that he
and his parents got aborted the respondent, as such, they
never performed the Sravanapatti formality and asked the
father of the respondent to complete the said formalities. He
has further admitted that Doctor M.Kasturi (RW-3) is a
Gynecologist who is their family Doctor. He has denied a
suggestion that he and his parents took the respondent to
RW-3. As per Ex.P8, RW3 is a consulting doctor at
Secunderabad Nursing Home. He has taken the respondent
to Vijaya Diagnostic, Himayatnagar for medical test.
11. PW-3 is his car driver. However, he has denied to a
suggestion that when the respondent suffered with a bleeding
during pregnancy, immediately, she was taken to
Secunderabad Nursing Home for abortion which was on the
advice of RW-3. He has also denied to a suggestion that he
and his parents got admitted the respondent in Secunderabad
Nursing Home on 26.07.2011 and discharged on 31.07.2011
and she was treated by RW3. He has also denied to a
suggestion that PW3 his driver brought medicine from
Mediplus at Ramakrishna Nagar at Bagh Amberpet on the
prescription of RW3. Sri R.Chandrashekar resident of
Malakpet is his mother's sister's husband. He never witnessed
any of the aforesaid cases. He has also denied to a suggestion
that he abused the respondent before Sri A.Balaiah saying
"Daridaram Munda" and snatched the cell phone of the
respondent in order to not to communicate with her parents.
He also admitted about the notice sent by Sagara Sangam
and panchayat held. He also further admitted that he and his
parents made best efforts to resolve the issues.
12. He has started a new company in the name and style of
'Launch Ship Technology Solutions Private Limited' in April,
2011 along with his partner Sri Chakrapani Tummalapalli.
His partner expired in the year 2012-13. His father and
himself are the Directors of the said company.
13. PW-2 is the father of PW1. His deposition is also on the
same lines.
14. PW-3 is Driver of the PW-1 who deposed that
respondent hardly stayed in the appellant house about one
and half month only. During the said period, she used to
quarrel with the appellant on one pretext or the other. She
always used to sleep or watch T.V. She gave a complaint with
Women Police Station, Saroornagar, on 19.05.2012 against
the appellant and his parents. He has also deposed about
filing of D.V.C. No.14 of 2013 and according to him after
undergoing torture including sending him to jail by the
respondent on filing D.V.C. with false allegations, finally
appellant filed the aforesaid O.P.
15. During the cross examination, PW3 has admitted that in
the year, 2011 one lady by name Laxmi used to work as a
maid servant and used to stay at ground floor. She only used
to work with appellant's family. He came to know about the
Police complaint filed by respondent against the appellant. He
has not witnessed personally when the appellant was brought
him to Police Station. Sri N.Chandrashekar, is relative of
appellant's father. PW-3 stayed outside the police station but
Advocate Sudha Rani and father and brother of respondent
were present in the Police Station. He used to take
appellant's family to hospital and he never took respondent to
RW-3 Hospital. There was Mediplus Medical shop at
Ramakrishna Nagar, Bagh Amberpet.
16. Respondent was examined as RW-1 and during the
cross examination she has admitted that she has lodged a
complaint with Sagara Sangam Community and also with
Police and that appellant was sent to jail. To a specific
question she has admitted that she has not withdrawn the
criminal cases and if the appellant had taken back to her to
his company she would have withdrawn the said criminal
cases. She has also admitted about filing of D.V.C. No.14 of
2013 in the aforesaid appeal.
17. She was three months pregnant at the time of
admission into hospital on 26.07.2011. She has undergone
some test that was prescribed in Ex.12. She underwent all
the tests. She has filed only HIV report and she has not filed
remaining reports of the test, as she felt the same are not
necessary. She is a Post Graduate and not working at the
present. Her brother is a milk vendor. According to her, her
husband is working as a CEO of a Company and getting
salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Her father also deposed
on the same lines.
18. It is relevant to note the deposition of RW-3-doctor who
treated the respondent. According to her, respondent initially
used to come to her and after her marriage for irregular
periods. She treated her for the said problem. One day
respondent came to her with three months "Amenoria" (not
getting periods for 3 months) with bleeding. When she
examined her, she was pregnant and bleeding. She advised
respondent/RW-1 for admitting into Secunderabad Nursing
Home and was admitted. She was being treated for threatened
abortion. After admission and treatment, the bleeding was
stopped. After treatment she was discharged. After sometime
(after few days) she again came back with bleeding. Then,
they have conducted scanning which showed missed abortion
(the baby is already dead and it is not viable). They have
evacuated (cleaned) and discharged her.
19. However, during cross examination, RW3-Doctor has
admitted that as per Exhibit P-9 as on 26.07.2011 when there
is no pregnancy, but contra to the same, she has issued a
certificate stating that by then respondent (Rw-1) was three
months pregnancy as per Ex.R-14 she thought that it was
three months pregnancy but it was three months "Amenoria".
20. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the marriage of the
appellant with the respondent is a second marriage to him.
According to him he has informed the said facts to the
respondent and on knowing only she has accepted for the
said marriage. However, the said fact is not in dispute.
21. According to the appellant, respondent did not
cooperate with him in consummation of marriage. Ultimately,
the marriage was consummated and the said fact was
admitted the appellant in his cross examination.
22. There is dispute with regard to pregnancy and abortion.
Rw-3/Doctor who treated Rw-1 during cross examination
categorically mentioned that three months period is
"AMENORIA" but not pregnancy. However, it is also a
disputed fact.
23. But the fact remains that both the appellant and
respondent are residing separately from 24.11.2011. The
appellant had filed the aforesaid O.P. only on 08.08.2012. The
appellant is aged about 50 years now. Respondent is aged
about 47 years. Though the marriage was performed on
15.05.2011, appellant has filed the aforesaid O.P. on
08.08.2012. Assuming for a moment that they stayed
together only for a period of one year two months, but
according to the appellant, she left his company on
24.11.2011. According to the respondent, the appellant
necked her out. But the fact remains that both are living
separately from 24.11.2011.
24. It is also not in dispute that at the instance of
respondent, C.C.No.221 of 2012 was registered against the
appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and
vide judgment dated 30.09.2014 he was acquitted. It is also
not in dispute that respondent had filed D.V.C.No.14 of 2013
and vide order dated 19.09.2016, learned Magistrate directed
the appellant to pay the amounts in the manner stated supra.
Appellant herein had preferred an appeal vide Criminal
Appeal No.812 of 2016 and the same was allowed on
13.03.2019.
25. She has filed Crl.R.C.No.443 of 2019 challenging the
said order and the said Crl.R.C. was also dismissed on
07.09.2012. It is not in dispute that the appellant was
remanded in the aforesaid criminal case and he was sent to
jail. The said fact was admitted by the respondent during
cross examination. Thus, there is strained relationship
between the appellant and respondent.
26. As discussed supra, according to the appellant,
respondent did not cooperate with him in leading conjugal life
and more particularly in consummation of marriage.
Ultimately, the marriage was consummated. They are living
separately from 24.11.2011. Thus, they have filed the
aforesaid cases against each other. Thus it appears there is a
strained relationship between the appellant and the
respondent.
27. It is also relevant to note that both of them are highly
educated. It is second marriage to the appellant. Therefore,
according to this Court, there is no possibility of reunion. It is
also apt to note that efforts were made for reunion of the
parties. Respondent has approached her caste association
i.e., Sagara Sangam Community who issued notice. Even
then, the said Sagam elders or the parents of the appellant
and respondent failed to resolve the issues between the
appellant and respondent. The said aspects were not
considered by the learned Family Court in the impugned
order.
28. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. Family Court and
this Court has to examine facts of each case basing on the
evidence and come to a conclusion whether the said acts
constitute cruelty. Cruelty includes mental cruelty.
29. As discussed supra, though the respondent lodged a
complaint against the appellant for the offence under Section
498-A of I.P.C. and the said case ended in acquittal, she did
not prefer any appeal. Of course, mere lodging of the
complaint against the husband for the offence under Section
498-A of I.P.C. is not a cruelty. At the same time, when the
said case was ended in acquittal, respondent-wife did not
prefer any appeal. He was sent to jail during crime stage i.e.,
Crime No.73 of 2012. Thus, it amounts to cruelty. She has
also filed the aforesaid D.V.C.No.14 of 2013 and the same was
allowed in part.
30. Feeling aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred an
appeal and the same was allowed. The respondent filed the
aforesaid Crl.R.C. and the same was also dismissed on
07.09.2005 and the said order attained finality. The said
facts disrupted the relation between the appellant and
respondent and strained their relation, further.
31. As discussed supra, appellant is aged about 50 years as
on today and respondent is aged about 47 years. They are
staying separately from 24.11.2011. According to respondent,
her husband is working as a CEO of a Company and earning
an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per month towards salary. Even
the appellant agreed that he started the Company along with
his partner, who died in the year 2012-13. His father and
appellant are the Directors of the said Company. The said
aspects were not considered by the learned Family Court in
the impugned order.
32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not on
consideration of entire material on record including the
evidence both oral and documentary.
33. Accordingly, the Family Court Appeal is allowed and the
impugned order and decree, dated 29.12.2017, passed in
F.C.O.P.No.1151 of 2012 by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Secunderabad, is set aside and consequently,
F.C.O.P.No.1151 of 2012 is allowed and the marriage of
appellant with the respondent performed on 15.05.2011 is
dissolved by way of granting decree of divorce on condition of
appellant paying an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) to the respondent towards permanent alimony
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Failing which, liberty is granted to the respondent to
take steps in accordance with law. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
__________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Dated: 07.06.2024
smk/ns
