Telangana High Court
K Arvind Kumar vs K Sheela Rani on 22 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.405 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order
dated 28.04.2017 in O.P.No.1110 of 2012 passed by the
learned Additional Family Court Judge, at Hyderabad.
2. One K.Aravind Kumar/husband filed O.P for divorce
against his wife K.Sheela Rani/respondent under Section
13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty.
The petitioner in the trial Court examined himself as P.W.1
and marked Exs.P1 to P5. Respondent examined herself as
R.W.1. The trial Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record dismissed the petition.
Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner therein preferred
the present appeal.
3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
entire record.
4. The parties herein are referred as petitioner/husband
and respondent/wife as arrayed before the trial Court for
the sake of convenience.
5. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was
performed on 06.05.2009, and after marriage, they lived
together for two weeks in Phoolbagh, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad. Later, petitioner shifted the family to
Ahmedabad, where he was working as Telephone Operator
in army. Respondent started quarrelling with petitioner on
petty issues and if petitioner comes late from office, she
used to shout at him in the presence of neighbors.
Whenever petitioner telephoned to his mother to enquire
about her health, respondent used to quarrel with him.
After one year, petitioner and respondent returned to
Hyderabad and stayed in the same house. After one
month, petitioner was transferred to Leh Ladak, Kashmir.
After one month, Government has acquired the houses in
slum area, Phoolbagh, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, where the
petitioner was residing and accordingly the mother of the
petitioner and respondent took house on rent in Raj
Mohalla, Hyderabad.
6. Petitioner's mother is working as attender in
Government High School, Hyderguda. Respondent never
took care of mother of petitioner and did not attend to any
household works. Respondent was also working as teacher
in a private school and used to come to house late in the
night. When petitioner's mother questioned, respondent
used to quarrel with her. Whenever petitioner comes to
Hyderabad, his mother used to kiss and hug him, but it
was objected by respondent. Respondent used to abuse
the petitioner in filthy language over phone, because of
which he could not concentrate on his job. Several
panchayats were also held by elders, but there was no
change in the attitude of the respondent. Respondent gave
birth to a female child on 03.02.2011. When petitioner
requested respondent to join his company, she demanded
separate family and did not join his company and she
started living in her parental house since October, 2010.
She also telephoned to Commanding Officer and demanded
him not to sanction leave to the petitioner besides
demanding that petitioner should make fixed deposit of
Rs.2 lakhs in the name of respondent. She addressed a
letter to Commanding Officer by making false allegations
against petitioner. Petitioner deposited Rs.80,000/- in the
name of his daughter, Shreya.
7. When petitioner applied for premature discharge from
army, respondent raised objection demanding petitioner to
continue in the job. Petitioner was discharged from his job
on 30.06.2012. Respondent went to Bangalore and met
Group SM and Officers and requested them to take
petitioner into army again without the knowledge and
consent of the petitioner. Respondent lodged a complaint
against petitioner on 11.07.2012 with false allegations.
Petitioner is a sports person in Boxing and recipient of
State Gold Medal, Sub Junior National Gold Medal and
Junior National Silver Medal, as such he was appointed as
coach in the army. Though, he was interested to live with
the respondent, she did not join his company and meted
out cruelty on him.
8. Respondent filed a counter denying all the material
allegations and further stated that her parents have
Rs.3,50,000/- in cash, 13 tulas of gold and household
articles worth Rs.1 lakh to petitioner towards dowry
besides spending Rs.8 lakhs towards marriage expenses.
She stated that after marriage, petitioner and his parents
started harassing her and abused her in filthy language
besides beating her on petty issues. When she was
pregnant, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and petitioner
attacked her and beat her, as such she left to her parents'
house. Petitioner used to come to the house late in the
night in drunken condition and used to beat her severely.
Petitioner did not turn up to see the child for four months
after her birth. He and his mother harassed respondent by
demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and threatened
to give divorce and also threatened to kill her and also
stated that petitioner would perform another marriage.
9. Petitioner and respondent were living separately since
July, 2012. Their evidence is oath against oath. The trial
Court observed that disputes between petitioner and
respondent are clearly wear and tear of the family and they
were blessed with a female child. As the petitioner failed to
establish the ground of cruelty, the trial Court dismissed
the application. Aggrieved by the said order,
appellant/husband preferred the present appeal.
10. In the evidence, it was stated that respondent has no
interest to join the petitioner's company, but petitioner is
interested to live with her. The judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court which are relied upon by the learned
counsel for appellant regarding irretrievable breakdown of
marriage under Article 142 of Constitution of India is not
applicable to this case.
11. In the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, 1 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that cruelty can be physical as
well as mental:
If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it
is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the
cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such
treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused
reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or
injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of
(2007) 4 SCC 511
inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature
of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.
12. As per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court between Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita 2, it was held as
follows:
Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the
same, the context where it has been used, which is as a
ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it
has to be seen as a 'human conduct' and 'behavior' in a
matrimonial relationship.
13. Cruelty can be even unintentional and the absence of
intention should not make any difference in the case. As
per the case of Samar Gosh (supra) it was held as follows:
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.
MANU/SC/0456/2023
14. In the light of the above citations and guidelines, now
it is for the Court to see whether the conduct of the
respondent amounts to cruelty or not.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended
that respondent was not living with his mother and his
mother is working as attender in school and she was
residing near to her sister's house. He mainly contended
that when he enquired about the health of his mother,
respondent used to pick up quarrel with him. Respondent
also worked as teacher for one month. Several
panchayaths were held between the parties and even they
advised the petitioner to stay separately with his wife. As
such, he was residing separately after the birth of child. It
clearly shows that respondent was not interested to stay
with her mother-in-law, though her mother-in-law was
working. Whenever, petitioner comes to home from army,
his mother used to hug and kiss him and even such
expression of love by his mother was objected by the
respondent. Natural expression of love and affection
between son and mother was not properly understood by
the respondent.
16. The petitioner was working in army from the past 16
years and he was away from the family, as such, he applied
for premature discharge and accordingly he was
discharged on 30.06.2012, but respondent objected the
same and went to Bangalore and requested the officials to
take him to army again. Petitioner stated that she went to
Bangalore without his knowledge and consent and she also
addressed a letter to the Commanding Officer not to
sanction any leave to the petitioner. Respondent asked the
petitioner to deposit Rs.2 lakhs in her name. As such, he
deposited Rs.80,000/- from his savings in the name of
their daughter. Petitioner stated that he was sports person
and as a result, he was appointed as Coach in the army.
Respondent used to abuse him in filthy language, as such
he could not able to concentrate on his job.
17. Respondent denied all the facts and stated that
petitioner used to come home in a drunken condition and
beat her. Even her mother-in-law and sister-in-law also
beat her when she was working, as such she went to her
parents' house.
18. Basing on the allegations and counter allegations
made by both parties against each other clearly shows that
there is no compatibility between the parties. In the
evidence of respondent, she clearly admitted that they were
living separately from 25.09.2012. The petitioner in his
evidence stated that he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir
and he could not get leave, as such he had seen his
daughter after four months. Petitioner stated that after
filing of the case, respondent approached him and
requested to join her, but he did not care about it, as he
filed the case, after that she gave the police complaint
against him. Respondent denied that she lodged a
complaint after filing of O.P for divorce. The said O.P. was
filed on 24.07.2012. She also stated that petitioner was
arrested and detained in judicial custody for 2 to 3 days in
connection with the complaint given by her.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Jayachandra Vs Aneel
Kaur 3 held as follows:
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.
20. The cruelty depends upon the facts of each case. In
this case petitioner was working in army and he intended
3 AIR 2005 SC 534
to take care of his mother and the respondent refused to
stay with her and she used to pick up quarrel with him
whenever he enquired about health condition of his mother
on phone. She also addressed a letter to the Commanding
Officer with false allegations against petitioner and asked
him not to grant leave to the petitioner and further insisted
him to deposit an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in her name. As a
result, petitioner deposited Rs.80,000/- in the name of his
daughter. When he has taken voluntary retirement to stay
with the family, respondent went to Bangalore to meet
Officers without the consent of the petitioner and requested
them to take petitioner again into the army. Petitioner
contended that he worked for about 16 years in the army
and he was far away to the family, as such he applied for
premature discharge, but the respondent objected the
same. Even after voluntary retirement, he was working in
central bank. The conduct of the respondent is too much
interference even it is work place and clearly amounts to
mental cruelty against the petitioner, as such petitioner is
entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
21. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is allowed,
setting aside the Order of the trial Court 28.04.2017 in
O.P.No.1110 of 2012 and the marriage between the parties
is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The respondent has
completed her MBA and worked as teacher in a private
school for one month and the daughter is with her.
Appellant/Petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5
lakhs towards educational expenses of his daughter and
Rs.10 lakhs towards her marriage expenses within three
(03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 22.03.2024
CHS
