Court:Andhra Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE L. Narasimha Reddy & S.V. Bhatt
Ganti Srinivas Vs. G. Vasantha On 10 June 2013
Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Cruelty — Acts and omissions on part of respondent-wife constitute cruelty — Settlement between parties — Permanent alimony — All criminal cases instituted by respondent ended in acquittal — To constitute a ground of cruelty, on part of one spouses towards another it is not necessary that there must be physical altercations, or assaults — During pendency of OPs, parties arrived at an understanding and in terms thereof sum of Rs. 7,25,000 was paid to respondent towards permanent alimony — It is not at all feasible for them to live together — Order passed by Trial Court set aside — Decree of divorce granted on ground of cruelty.
JUDGEMENT
1. These two appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arise out of a common order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, in OP Nos. 386 and 1375 of 2008.
2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 4.8.1993, and they were also blessed with two children in the years 1994 and 1997. Differences have arisen thereafter. The appellant filed OP No. 386 of 2008 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondent, for divorce. The respondent, on the other hand, filed OP No. 1375 of 2008 under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. Through a common judgment, the Trial Court dismissed OP No. 386 of 2008 and allowed OP No. 1375 of 2008.
3. Mr. D.V. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the parties herein lived amicably upto the year 1997, differences have arisen thereafter, particularly after the appellant left for Canada, for better prospects in employment. He contends that the efforts made by the appellant to patch up the differences did not fructify. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent has the habit of picking up quarrels, without any justification, and to go over to the house of her parents, and live there for long spells. He contends that not only the efforts of the mediators to bring about reconciliation failed, but also the notice got issued by the appellant to require the respondent to join his company resulted in the institution of cases under Section 498A, IPC, etc., with baseless and wild allegations. Learned Counsel submits that the various acts and omissions on the part of the respondent constitute desertion and cruelty, and the Trial Court ought to have allowed the O.P.386 of 2008, filed by him. He further submits that the filing of OP No. 1375 of 2008, by the respondent, was only a make-believe affair and that she has no intention to join the company of the appellant
4. Mr. R. Satyanarayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is the appellant, who deserted the respondent, and when he has left for abroad, he cannot expect the respondent to live in the house of his parents. He submits that when the appellant himself has created a situation for the respondent to live separately, he cannot call it as desertion on the part of the respondent, much less cruelty. He has also pleaded that the respondent was left with no alternative, except to approach the police with her grievances.
5. Both the OPs were tried together by the Trial Court. Necessary points were framed therein. The appellant deposed as PW1 and his mother deposed as PW2. Exs. P1 to P11 were filed by them. The respondent deposed as RW1, and she filed Exs. Rl to R4. In both the OPs, the Trial Court held against the appellant herein.
6. Now, the point that arises for consideration before us, is, as to whether the appellant has proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion, on the part of the respondent, and is entitled for the decree of divorce.
7. In his deposition, the appellant has reiterated the contents of the OP. He submits that the respondent has deserted him by residing in the house of her parents without any justification, and despite the issuance of notice, she did not come back. The respondent, on the other hand, pleads that she was forced to live in the house of her parents, unable to bear the harassment. She also alleged that the appellant used to demand additional dowry. In the teeth of these allegations, we find it difficult to record any finding as to the desertion on the part of the respondent.
8. However, the ground of cruelty, in the instant case, stands on a different footing. The developments, that have taken place, particularly after the appellant left for Canada, in search of better employment, disclose that the appellant and his family members were subjected to harassment and cruelty on account of institution of various proceedings. All the criminal cases instituted by the respondent ended in acquittal. The documents pertaining to those cases are filed as Exs. P2 to P8. To constitute a ground of cruelty, on the part of one spouse, towards another, it is not necessary that there must be physical altercations, or assaults. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that the institution of criminal cases, by a wife, against the husband and his family members, would, by itself, constitute cruelty, particularly when it ends up in acquittal. In addition to that, PWs.l and 2 have spoken to certain other facts also.
9. During the pendency of the OPs, an important development has taken place. The parties have arrived at an understanding on 13.7.2006, and in terms thereof, a sum of Rs. 7,25,000 was paid to the respondent. Though an attempt is made on the part of the respondent to plead that the said amount represented the dowry received from her parents and that the same was returned, we find it difficult to believe the same. When there was an agreement between the parties to part with ways, and when the appellant has changed his position by paying a sum of Rs. 7,25,000, obviously towards permanent alimony, we find that it is not at all feasible for them to live together. The acts and omissions on the part of the respondent constitute cruelty.
10. We accordingly allow the FCA No. 240 of 2013 and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in OP No. 386 of 2008. We allow the said O.P. and grant a decree of divorce, on finding that the appellant has proved the ground of cruelty on the part of the respondent. Once the OP No. 386 of 2008 is allowed, OP No. 1375 of 2008 becomes infructuous, and we accordingly allow the FCA No. 142 of 2012, by setting aside the decree in that OP.
11. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment