Telangana High Court
Smt.Yadamma , K.Y.Laxmi vs Dr.S.P.Raja Manohar on 15 March, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.187 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order dated
09.02.2012 in O.P.No.216 of 2008 passed by the learned Family
Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. One Dr.S.P.Raja Manohar/petitioner-husband filed O.P
for divorce against her wife Yadamma allias K.Y.Lasxmi/
respondent-wife under Section 13 (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage
Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner in the
trial Court examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to
A8. Respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and also examined
R.Ws.2 to 6 and also marked Exs.B.1 to B.52 on her bahalf. The
trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence
on record disolved the marriage by decree of divorce. Aggrieved
by the said order, petitioner therein preferred the present
appeal.
3. Petitioner mainly contended that the main ground for
seeking divorce is that respondent herein wrongly stated about
her age, caste and name and it amounts to physical and mental
cruelty. Except the self serving evidence of the respondent
herein, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the said
allegations by P.W.1. Even if the allegations are true, the
petitioner himself had condoned the same further in his
evidence as P.W.1 he has admitted that respondent is seven
years younger than him. Respondent submits that she has
clearly stated all the true facts about her age, caste, name and
education and after getting satisfied only petitioner married her.
The Court below is not justified in disbelieving the evidence of
R.W.3 who is the brother of respondent, R.W.2 who is sister of
respondent. Petitioner stated that respondent used to cook food
in the house but not to the taste of the petitioner. The
allegation that the petitioner is a strict vegetarian is not true
since respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner is in the
habit of consuming non-veg food also. The finding of the Court
below is that the petitioner caused mental and physical
harassment is more imaginary than real and petitioner cannot
take advantage of his own acts of desertion. While granting
divorce petitioner did not returned the articles of the respondent
and did not provide maintenance and permanent alimony.
Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the judgment passed
by the Family Court.
4. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband and
respondent/wife arraigned in the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
5. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was
performed on 19.11.1999 at Malkajgiri, immediately after the
marriage of petitioner's sister. The petitioner got printed the
invitation cards both for himself and on behalf of the
respondent on his own accord and help the respondent. The
petitioner distributed the cards on his behalf. But later he came
to know that the respondent did not distribute the invitation
cards so that the relatives and friends of the respondent did not
attend the marriage function. After registration of their
marriage respondent disclosed to the petitioner that her real
name was K.Yadamma, but not K.Y.Lakshmi and admitted that
she played mischief and she also disclosed that she does not
belong to Brahmin Community and did not disclose her true
community, caste, and other particulars.
6. The petitioner contended that the respondent was rude in
her behavior and was never cooperative with the petitioner and
she used to cook food for herself and used to bring non-
vegetarian food from outside and taking it in the presence of the
petitioner even though the petitioner objected to it since he is a
strict vegetarian. It was further contended that the respondent
developed a close rapport with the first wife of the petitioner.
The influence of the first wife has poisoned the mind of the
respondent and the respondent used to frequently visit the
house of the first wife of the petitioner without his knowledge
and as a result frequent quarrels occurred between petitioner
and respondent which resulted a kind of aversion between the
petitioner and respondent. On 04.03.2000 on Maha Sivarathri
day, the respondent has left the company of the petitioner
without any reasonable cause and had taken away all her
belongings, articles and jewellery which has been purchased by
the petitioner and went to her brother's house at Nallakunta.
Thereafter, the respondent used to make calls every day to the
house of petitioner and threatening that she would initiate
criminal action against him unless the house property of the
petitioner is transferred in the name of the respondent and she
informed that she became pregnant and even threatened the
petitioner that she would get abortion and make the petitioner
responsible for it and would implicate him under medico legal
case.
7. The petitioner sent a lawyer notice dated 18.04.2000
reiterating the above facts and seeking consent for mutual
divorce. The respondent also sent a reply notice dated
22.04.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner had come to know
through the contents of Police complaint lodged by respondent
during October, 2000, that the respondent lost her pregnancy
few months after her deserting the petitioner. The attitude of
the respondent herein is adamant and she is bent upon
harassing the petitioner for no fault of him. In these
circumstances, he filed the petition for judicial separation. As a
counter blast respondent filed criminal case under Sections
498-A, 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and
Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act')
and the same is registered and numbered as C.C.No.373/2000.
The petitioner realized that instead of pursuing judicial
separation it would be better to dissolve the marriage between
the petitioner and respondent and as such the petitioner has
withdrawn the said OP and filed the present case for divorce.
8. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations
mentioned in the petition, except admitting the marriage took
place between both of them. Respondent stated that she had no
knowledge that petitioner already married Smt.Naga Laxmi
Kumari and respondent has also no knowledge regarding
petitioner approaching Family Court and obtaining order of
divorce and she also no knowledge about the petitioner got two
minor children through the said Naga Laxmi Kumari. The
petitioner even has not mentioned in previous petition i.e., in
O.P.No.216/2000 regarding said children. It was further denied
by the respondent that petitioner had given a paper
advertisement seeking to marriage alliance. But the petitioner
has suppressed the facts of having two daughters through his
first wife. Respondent further stated that petitioner wrote a
letter to respondent stating that he was interested in marrying
this respondent.
9. She denied that the petitioner purchased gold, silver,
clothes items worth about Rs.23,000/- for the respondent
before the marriage apart from bearing marriage expenses and
also incurred all the expenditure of marriage although it was
very simple. The respondent has stated to the petitioner
regarding her caste before marriage only and petitioner has
agreed to marry respondent on informing regarding her caste. It
was further denied that respondent could not distribute the
cards, as the petitioner given the wedding cards just few hours
before the marriage. She denies that the petitioner is
vegetarian. The petitioner takes non-vegetarian food. She also
denies that she left the petitioner on 04.03.2000.
10. It was further denied by the respondent that the
petitioner filed O.P.No.216 of 2000 before the Family Court for
judicial separation with false allegations and on false grounds
and stated that petitioner has withdrawn the said O.P.No.216 of
2000 after filing of counter by the respondent.
11. Respondent further stated that she is highly educated
woman who has done her M.A., M.Phil (Ph.D), M.Sc, and LLB
and also stated that she is working as an officer in National
Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad for the last 16 years. She
further submits that petitioner stated that he is divorcee but
suppressed the fact of having two daughters through his first
wife and also suppressed the pendency of suit for custody of
said children filed by him. Respondent further contended that
petitioner induced the respondent by making false
representation that he is interested only to marry her and also
stated that he is not interested on the money of respondent. It
was further contended that immediately after the marriage
petitioner and his sister used to harass her demanding the
entire salary of the respondent and they even did not give
proper food and because of which the respondent became very
weak and mentally depressed due to cruel acts of the petitioner
and pregnancy of the respondent aborted. She further stated
that, petitioner dropped the respondent at her brother's house
on 04.03.2000 by stating that respondent will not take her back
to his matrimonial home unless and until the respondent full fill
all demands of petitioner.
12. The main contention of the petitioner is that her date of
birth was in the year 1955 as per school records, which
acknowledges the fact that the age of respondent corresponding
to the year 1999 is 45 years. But she has shown her age as 35
years as per Ex.A.1. If at all she was aged 45 years petitioner
could not married her as she should have lost her menstrual
course. The petitioner printed her educational qualification as
(Ph.D) on his wedding invitation card i.e., Ex.B.46. But even
after one year from the date of said marriage the educational
qualification of respondent is shown as (Ph.D) as per Ex.B.7,
and the said bracket acknowledges the fact that she is not
qualified as Ph.D as on 03.10.2000. He further stated that
respondent by making him to believe that she is 35 years old,
vegetarian, Brahmin, and qualified as Ph.D. In fact she was
reverse to those things and stated that it is clear case of cruelty.
The petitioner has no documentary evidence regarding the
caste, age, qualification of respondent as stated by him in the
present petition and in rejoinder legal notice vide Ex.A.8 as on
01.05.2000. Since respondent deposed regarding her official
age and caste during her cross-examination in 2008, basing on
the same petitioner is entitled to nullify the said marriage
between him and the respondent as per the provisions of
Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was further
contended that she has not invited her own brother and sister
to her marriage, misrepresented her name as K.Y.Lakshmi, and
suppressed her official name i.e., K.Yadamma and she did not
invite her relatives.
13. It was further contended by the petitioner that the date of
matrimonial add given by petitioner is 25.04.1999 itself and the
dates of purchase bills filed by the respondent as Ex.B.8 to B.20
which are prior to said date 25.04.1999, the respondent has no
ground to say that petitioner insisted her to buy gold ornaments
for the marriage. The documents filed as Ex.B.12 and Ex.B.13
are only cash estimates which do not reveals any purchase of
gold item. The list of gold items as per Ex.A.7, are not genuine,
and that the purchase bills filed as Ex.B.8 to B.13 are
fabricated, Ex.B.50, reveals that the petitioner is strictly against
dowry, and that the choice of the petitioner is only register
marriage. The petitioner wanted to become father of a kid to
take his care during his old age, but the petitioner is cheated by
the respondent in life.
14. R.W.6 stated that from Ex.B.25 the name of patient who
undergone urine test and confirmed the pregnancy of one
S.Y.Lakshmi. Respondent has left the company of petitioner on
04.03.2000, and the date of documents which are filed as
Ex.B.22 to Ex.B.26, Ex.B.51 and Ex.B.52 are earlier to
04.03.2000 and said exhibits do not reveal that respondent got
aborted of her alleged pregnancy. R.W.1 rejoined to duty after
availing earned leave on 01.03.2000 as per Ex.B.44, and she
was on office duty on 03.03.2000 as per Ex.B.45, since her
leave commenced by prefixing the public holiday on 04.03.2000.
R.W.1 was never conceived any viable pregnancy but
misrepresented to the petitioner and to doctor that she missed
monthly menstrual period because she conceived pregnancy,
basing on the said misrepresentation by the R.W.1, the doctor
R.W.6 treated her for pregnancy, hence same line of treatment
is extended by other doctors. But Ex.B.36 shows that R.W.1 is
treated for "loose motions" as in patient. If really R.W.1 aborted
earlier to 23.03.2000, or even after 23.03.2000 she would have
stated the same in her reply legal notice issued to petitioner
which is dated as 22.04.2000 under Ex.A.7.
15. It is further contended that R.W.1 never offered even
drinking water to the guests, and relatives of petitioner who so
ever visited to the marital home and used to insult the petitioner
in front of them, and at the same time insult them in front of
petitioner.
16. R.W.2 is the younger sister of R.W.1, R.W.3 is brother of
R.W.1, R.W.5 is the maid servant in the house of R.W.1 and
R.W.6 is the doctor. It is clear that respondent is working as
Officer in National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad whereas
the petitioner was working as engineer in M/s.Ralchem Limited.
17. It was further stated by the petitioner that respondent
filed criminal case against him and he faced to the said case
nearly 8 years and also stated that respondent filed criminal
revision case against him and it was dismissed.
18. It was admitted by the respondent that her name was
mentioned as Yadamma in official and school records but she
stated her name as K.Y.Lakshmi instead of Yadamma.
19. It was averred that without discussing the evidence of the
witnesses at length the trial Court dissolved the marriage of the
petitioner and respondent.
20. Now, it is for this Court to see whether the order of the
Trial Court is on proper appreciation of facts or not.
21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
A.Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur 1 in Appeal (civil) 7763-7764 of
2004, that:
"The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act.
Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground
for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and
unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to
life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a
reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of
mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of
marital ties of the particular society to which the parties
belong, their social values, status, environment in which they
live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which
falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need
not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is
established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn
that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an
apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her
mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In
delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the
probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the
shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to
civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate
personal relationship as those of husband and wife."
22. Petitioner and his first wife took divorce by mutual
consent in O.P.No.375 of 1996 in O.P.No.1376 of 1995 dated
08.10.1996. As per Ex.A.1 name of the respondent was shown
as K.Y.Lakshmi, Hindu, vegetarian, age as 35 years, occupation
(2005) 2 SCC 22
as Central Government employee as Gazetted Officer drawing
salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, her qualification was shown
as M.A, M.Phill (Ph.D), M.Sc(Zoo).
23. Under Ex.B.50 sister of the petitioner addressed a letter
to the respondent on 11.05.1999 stated that her brother is B.E.,
P.G in Engineering, Ph.D in Mg Sc and is doing Ph.D in
Engineering and also stated that he worked in State and Central
Government undertakings earlier in North and Hyderabad and
stated that presently he is working as Engineer in a limited
company and is drawing Rs.12,000/- per month. He has a two
bedroom apartment, he is aged about 40 years old and he has
divorced on mutual consent basis and has no encumbrances
and is strict vegetarian and further stated that he has four
brothers and two sisters who are highly educated and no dowry
is required and mentioned that registered marriage is preferred
and finally requested the respondent to contact her brother for
personal interview.
24. Basing on the above documents respondent contended
that petitioner suppressed the fact of having two children
through his wife and also pendency of the custody petition filed
by him whereas petitioner stated that she suppressed the fact
about her age and caste as Brahmin but in the advertisement
she has stated her community as Hindu, aged 35 years.
25. It is mainly contended by the petitioner that age of the
respondent is 45 years as on the date of marriage and he
intended to have children with her as she was aged 45 years she
could not get children and thus stated that she cheated him by
revealing false age. Even R.W.6 also stated that her age was
shown as 45 years and she would not be treated for pregnancy.
26. Both the petitioner and respondent did not reveal all the
facts before the marriage as such immediately after the
marriage disputes arise between them. Respondent in her letter
stated that she is vegetarian but in fact she is non-vegetarian.
She stated that petitioner is also non-vegetarian. But as per the
letter addressed by sister of the petitioner it clearly shows that
petitioner is vegetarian. Petitioner further stated though she
was working in National Institute of Nutrition she wrongly
mentioned the place of work to him this clearly shows that there
was no clear communication regarding important facts like age,
occupation and income etc., before the marriage by both the
parties. Both of them suppressed certain facts to each other
and the basic foundation of marriage is belief on each other
which was shattered with the suppression of facts. Immediately
after the marriage and there was no clear understanding
between the couple and they started blaming each other they
made allegations and counter allegations against each other
though both of them are highly qualified they could not live
happily after the marriage.
27. Petitioner contended that respondent wrongly stated her
qualification as Ph.D as such he printed the same in the
wedding card but in her letter she stated her qualification in the
brackets only he misunderstood the same and attributed the
falsehood to the respondent. Though respondent stated that
she conceived but her pregnancy was aborted it was not
believed by the petitioner. Though the actual name of the
respondent was Yadamma as per official and school records for
the reasons best known to her she mentioned her name as
K.Y.Lakshmi and also her age as 35 years and it clearly
amounts to mischief on her part.
28. This Court is of the view that the trial Court discussed the
evidence and examined each of the witnesses at length and
rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties on the
ground of cruelty and assertion and this Court finds no reason
to interfere with the said judgment.
29. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the Order of the trial Court dated 09.02.2012 in
O.P.No.216 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and the
marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE:15.03.2024
Bw
