Telangana High Court
Devi Narayan Mathur vs Sheethal Mathur on 27 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CCCA.NO.322 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02-06-2018 in
OS.No.520 of 2014 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under, their suit for damages
against the respondents herein was dismissed, the plaintiff in
the above referred suit have filed this first appeal under
Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') with a
prayer to set aside the impugned judgment, allow their claim
and pass a decree against the respondents.
2. Before adverting to the grounds on which this
appeal is filed, it is just and necessary to extract the pleadings
of both parties and the judgment by which the suit was
dismissed by the trial Court.
3. The appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents of the
3rd appellant. The 2nd respondent is father of the first
respondent. The marriage between appellant No.3 was
performed with 1st respondent on 11-02-2008 as per Hindu
rituals and customs prevailing in their community. Soon after
2 SSRN, J
the marriage, respondent No.1 joined the company of her
husband-the 3rd appellant herein at her matrimonial house.
However, she could not adjust and adhere to the matrimonial
necessities. She did not want to stay with her in-laws and
decide to break the family. The appellants have claimed that
respondent No.1 moved out of the matrimonial house without
informing anybody and repeated the same twice or thrice, on
the guise of continuing the education. When she made a
request, the appellants herein allowed her to join the
matrimonial home with appellant No.3, however, by giving
some time with a hope that she may mend her ways and
return. However, she did not give any sign of her joining the
company of 3rd appellant and his parents.
4. As per the further averments made in the plaint,
the appellants have claimed that there were disputes
between the couple which ultimately lead to exchange of
letters/notices and on a later date, respondent No.1 lodged a
complaint before Mirchowk Police Station. The police have
visited the house of appellants herein on 28-10-2010 and
Inspector of Police detained appellant Nos.1 and 3 for the
whole day in spite of their showing all the documents
3 SSRN, J
including the letters exchanged between the parties, draft
divorce proceedings, but the police compelled the 3rd
appellant herein to return the leftover articles. The appellants
No.1 and 2 could not avoid the pressure, thereby, handed
over the leftover articles to 1st respondent on 29-10-2010.
5. The appellants have further averred that against
the understanding between the parties for obtaining divorce
and though the 3rd appellant issued post-dated cheques
towards permanent alimony, respondent No.1 did not come
forward for divorce as per the understanding, thereby, the
appellant was compelled to issue instructions to the Banker
not to honour the cheque. Subsequently, on 05-12-2010,
which happened to be a Sunday, two police personnel from
S.R. Nagar visited the house of appellants along with the
2nd respondent and took the appellants No.1 and 3 to the
police station, compelled them to shell out the amounts
demanded by the respondents. The appellants have paid the
amounts with a hope of getting divorce, so that they can put
an end to the harassment and mental agony.
6. The appellants having alleged that the
respondents lodged a false complaint, dragged them to police
4 SSRN, J
station, and detained them in police station for several hours,
thereby, caused damage to the high respect which they used
to enjoy in the community. The 1st appellant is a retired
officer from South Central Railways, 2nd appellant is highly
qualified house-hold lady, thereby, the appellants have filed
the suit for damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- since the
acts committed by the respondents caused damage to their
reputation and also caused physical and mental pain.
7. The respondents have appeared before the trial
Court, filed a written statement admitting the marriage but
denied the other averments. According to the statement filed
by the respondents, they never caused any damage to the
reputation of the appellants herein and they have extracted
the events that had occurred between the families. According
to the sum and substance of the written statement filed by
the respondents, they have claimed that the 1st respondent
herein was physically man-handled and neck out from the
matrimonial house, she suffered injuries on her body. She
was referred to Hospital but no case was registered by
Mirchowk police and subsequently, on the influence of police,
the appellants herein obtained the signatures of respondents
5 SSRN, J
No.1 and 2 and brother-in-law of respondent No.1 on MOU
even after returning the leftover articles. Therefore,
according to the respondents, there was physical and mental
harassment at the hands of the appellants which prompted
the 1st respondent to lodge a complaint and subsequently,
there was divorce between the couple.
8. They have also claimed that the appellants are not
having good relations with the neighbours or the community
people, thereby, the question of lowering their reputation in
the society and community does not rise. The appellants
have suppressed the material facts and material documents.
They have also suppressed the fact that the 3rd appellant and
respondent No.1 filed divorce petition vide OP.No.1696 of
2010 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad. But failed to
plead that the divorce was also obtained in pursuance of the
undertaking dated 16-06-2011. There is no cause of action for
the appellants to file the above referred suit and sought for
dismissal of the suit.
9. As could be seen from the record that though the
respondents filed the petition under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC
seeking rejection of the plaint, the trial Court dismissed the
6 SSRN, J
petition on merits. The respondents have approached the
High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition, the same was
disposed by giving liberty to the respondents to file their
written statement and the trial Court was directed to frame a
specific issue as to the maintainability of the suit claim.
Therefore, the trial Court framed a preliminary issue for
consideration to decide whether the suit can be tried in a full
fledged manner or not. Accordingly, the trial Court framed
the following preliminary issue :
Whether the suit is maintainable from any
subsistence cause of action that was not barred by law?
10. The appellants have marked Exs.P1 to P3 and
respondents have marked Exs.R1 to R20. Since a preliminary
issue was framed, the parties did not adduce any oral
evidence. However, advanced their respective arguments.
The learned trial Judge having appreciated the documents
marked by both parties and arguments advanced on behalf of
the appellants as well as the respondents, decided the
preliminary issue against the appellants herein and dismissed
the suit.
7 SSRN, J
11. Even though, this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs
whose suit was dismissed based on the discussion of the trial
Court on a preliminary issue and though the appellants are
none other than the plaintiffs in the original suit, the grounds
under which this appeal is filed, it is claimed as if, the trial
Court passed the judgment without going through the
documents marked as Exs.R1 to R20, as if they were filed by
the appellants. In fact exhibits R1 to R20 were filed by the
respondents. In the second ground of the appeal itself, the
appellants have further claimed that the trial Court gave much
importance to Exs.P1 to P3 said to have been marked by the
respondents, in fact they were marked by the appellants
itself. The appellants have claimed the trial Court while
deciding the preliminary issue without deciding the issue
preliminarily ought to have conducted a full fledged trial and
ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to put
forth his (in fact their) version by adducing the evidence on
his part. The appellants have also claimed that the trial Court
while disposing the suit overlooked its own order in IA.No.
564 of 2014 in which the trial Court observed that unless and
until there is fullfledged trial, the issue involved in the suit
8 SSRN, J
could not be decided. Though the said order was confirmed
by the High Court in CRP.No.560 of 2016, the said fact was
ignored by the trial Court, as such, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.
12. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court
came to an incorrect conclusion with regard to the cause of
action on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. The
appellants have claimed that the trial Court ought to have
considered the pleadings of the plaint and considered Exs.R1
to R20 and as a matter of fact, due to the regular harassment
caused by the respondent, it caused mental agony and social
boycott of the appellants, thereby, it cannot be compensated
by any means as the names of the family members got
defamed by the respondents. Therefore, according to the
appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, they have
claimed that the trial Court disposed the suit without affording
opportunity to produce the evidence, thereby, sought for
setting aside the impugned judgment.
13. As could be from the grounds under which this
appeal is filed, the narration seems to be the appeal is filed as
if by one of the plaintiffs, in fact, the appeal is filed by all the
9 SSRN, J
three appellants. Whatever it may be according to the
grounds on which the appeal is filed, the appellants sought to
claim that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed their
suit without recording evidence and an opportunity could have
been provided, thereby, sought for setting aside the
impugned judgment.
14. In view of this specific pleadings of parties before
the trial Court and in view of the order of the High Court in
CRP preferred by the respondents and in view of the grounds
on which this appeal is preferred, the following points would
arose for consideration in this first Civil Appeal.
1. Whether the appellants were able to place sufficient
material before the Court to show that their reputation
was affected by the act/conduct of the
st
1 respondent/defendant No.1?
2. Whether the appellants have got cause of action to file
the suit seeking damages from the
respondents/defendants?
3. Whether the trial Court was wrong in disposing the
suit on the basis of the discussion on a preliminary
issue without giving an opportunity to the parties to
produce their evidence?
15. As per the narration of the events, according to
plaint and as per the grounds on which the appeal is filed, the
appellants/plaintiffs have claimed that the 1st respondent who
10 SSRN, J
was married to the 3rd appellant herein herself left the
matrimonial home, subjected the appellants herein to mental
harassment by filing police complaint and pressurizing them
to shell down money. Therefore, they sought for damages.
On the other hand, the respondents have claimed that the
appellants herein harassed the 1st respondent both physically
and mentally. She was objected to cruelty, thereby, she was
forced to file complaint before police. Subsequently, in view of
the understanding, the matter ended by filing divorce petition
which was subsequently allowed since the petition is filed for
damages on the ground that the respondents caused damage
to the reputation of the appellants. As the respondents
claimed that there was no such occasion for the respondents
to cause damage to the reputation of the appellants and in
view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the
appellants herein have no cause of action, the trial Court
based on Exs.P1 to P3 and R1 to R20, decided the suit
preliminarily.
16. As rightly absorbed by the trial Court, there is no
dispute about the relationship between the parties. There is
no dispute about the marriage that took place between
11 SSRN, J
appellant No.1 and/plaintiff No.1 and respondent
No.1/defendant No.1. The appellants have claimed before the
trial Court that respondent No.1 left their house on more than
one occasion without their knowledge. Subsequently, there
were disputes between the couple. It seems from the record
that a draft divorce petition has been prepared at the instance
of both parties. Perhaps, when there was failure on the part
of the appellants, there was a necessity for the respondent
No.1 even though it is accepted that she filed a complaint due
to which the appellants were summoned to police station,
it cannot be said that the respondents had any intention to
cause damage to the reputation of the appellants herein. The
documents produced by both parties clearly indicates the
circumstances under which a draft divorce petition was
prepared that too with the mutual consent of parties and
issuance of cheques which were subsequently dishonored and
the other circumstances under which second complaint was
filed by the 1st respondent before police, S.R. Nagar.
Therefore, the above stated circumstances indicates that only
because of the trouble between the couple, there was an
understanding for obtaining mutual divorce and the appellants
12 SSRN, J
No.1 to 3 did not abide by the understanding which forced the
respondents to avail the police help. Therefore, the appellants
did not place any material to show that they have got cause
of action to file the suit on the ground that their reputation
was damaged and they are entitled to compensation/damages
from the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court rightly
appreciated the arguments as well as the documents and
rightly dismissed the claim, thereby, there are no grounds to
allow the appeal or to direct the respondents herein to pay
damages of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
27th
March, 2024.
PLV
