CMA/2703/2003 of B.V.Ramakrishna Raju Vs Mrs.B.Bharathi on 30 December 2013

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

AND

% 30-12-2013

+C.M.A.No.2703 of 2003

B.V.Ramakrishna Raju .. Appellant

Vs.

$ Mrs. B. Bharathi ..

Respondent

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

! Counsel for appellant : Sri E. Phani Kumar ^ Counsel for respondent: Sri K. Balakrishna THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

C.M.A.No.2703 of 2003

JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,,J)

The marriage between the appellant and the respondenttook place in the year 1965. They were blessed with one sonand two daughters. The marriage of the first daughter wasperformed on 21.05.1998. Shortly thereafter, the appellant filedO.P.No.370 of 1999 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, againstthe respondent, for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HinduMarriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). He pleaded that afterthe marriage of their elder daughter, the respondent cameunder the influence of her brother and henchmen, and with that,she revolted against him without any cause. He pleaded thatthe behaviour of the respondent turned out to be quarrelsome,and unable to bear the harassment caused to him, he gave aportion of two rooms in his house to the respondent, as alicensee from June, 1998 onwards. He alleged that he is not intalking terms with his wife and children, ever since June, 1998,and he was subjected to harassment and cruelty, particularly,on account of a complaint lodged by the respondent with the police against him in November, 1998, alleging that he isharassing her for dowry. He, ultimately, pleaded that there is noscope for change of attitude in the mind of the respondent and,accordingly, prayed for divorce.

The respondent filed a counter, opposing the O.P. Shestated that it is the appellant, who harassed her, on one pretextor the other, including the one of demand of additional dowryand landed property. She stated that the appellant has drivenher away from the house. In addition to opposing the O.P., therespondent filed O.S.No.176 of 1999, against the appellant, formaintenance for herself and children.

Through order, dated 26.03.2003, the trial Courtdismissed the O.P.No.370 of 1999 and decreed theO.S.No.176 of 1999, granting maintenance to the respondent atthe rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- wasgranted, towards marriage expenses for the second daughter.

This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,1984, is filed against the decree in O.P.No.370 of 1999.

Sri E. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant,submits that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the oraland documentary evidence and dismissed the O.P. Hecontends that the very fact that the parties are living separatelyfrom the past 1 ½ decades, is sufficient to grant a decree fordivorce. The learned counsel submits that though there wereno serious disputes between the parties, the humiliation andharassment caused by the respondent to the appellant would constitute cruelty.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,submits that even if one goes by the contents of the O.P. filedby the appellant and the evidence on record, it would be justimpossible for any Court to grant a decree of divorce. Hecontends that on a totally small and trivial issue, as to whether acot should be shifted from one room to another, the appellantpicked up a quarrel; so much so, he has driven out, not only hiswife, the respondent, but also his children, from the residence. He contends that the appellant has subjected the respondent tocruelty and desertion, and being a housewife, having respect tothe values of the family, the respondent has put up with theharassment caused to her.

Arguments

The appellant claimed the relief of divorce against hiswife, the respondent, pleading the ground of cruelty. The O.P.was heard along with the suit filed by the respondent formaintenance and other ancillary reliefs. The nature of contestbetween the parties is, indeed, amazing.

On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examinedand Exs.P.1 to P.71 were filed. On behalf of the respondent,R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.12 were filed. The salary certificates of the appellant were taken on record asExs.X.1 and X.2.

The issues framed in the trial Court were only referable tothe suit and no point, as such, was framed in respect of theO.P. The trial Court found that the ground of cruelty is not proved. Therefore, the point that arises for consideration in thisappeal is as to whether the appellant has proved the ground ofcruelty against the respondent.

This is a rare case in which a person, that too, holding asenior post in the office of the Accountant General, thought ofseeking divorce from his wife, 35 years after the marriage. Thecurious part of it is that an event, which, by any standard istrivial, if not silly, is cited as the basis. Filing of a complaint bythe respondent against the appellant before the police, allegingthat he demanded additional dowry, is also mentioned.

The cruelty, which a party to a marriage can plead, maybe the result of certain specific acts, on the part of the otherspouse, or it can be the culmination of various acts andomissions spread over a long period. In the O.P., the appellantwas not specific about the acts of cruelty. In the O.P., hestated:

“(c) The petitioner’s son, who was born in 1970, hadstudied upto B.Sc., and subsequently, having developed badcompany of friends, he left the house during the year 1991 andas on date, there is no contact with the petitioner. Thepetitioner’s 1[st]daughter’s marriage was performed on21.05.1998 with Mr. P.Kumar Raju.

(d) The petitioner and the respondent have last residedtogether in the premises shown in the description above. Thatimmediately within one week, after the marriage of the firstdaughter, the respondent herein under the influence of herbrother and henchmen revolted against the petitioner withoutany good cause or bona fide reason. The petitioner toleratedthe abnormal behaviour of the respondent with a fond hope thatshe would realize the petitioner’s love and affection towards her, but however the respondent continued to be under the influenceof her brother Mr. V. Rama Raju.

(e) The petitioner, who was commanding good respectin society including at his place of service, could not adjust tothe quarrelsome nature of the respondent, who became apuppet in the hands of her brother and that upon the requestmade by the respondent, the petitioner had given a portion oftwo rooms in the petitioner’s house to be occupied by therespondent as a licensee since June 1998 onwards, aftergetting separated at her option in May, 1998.”

Two other reasons stated in the O.P. are that from June, 1980onwards, the respondent is living separately together with thesecond daughter, and that she filed a complaint in November,1998, alleging harassment for additional dowry. Rest of thenarration is about the exchange of notices.

The affidavit filed by the appellant as P.W.1 in lieu of chief-examination far exceeded the scope and content of the O.P.The following extract from the cross-examination of P.W.1would give an indication as to the origin of the dispute andnature of grievance of the appellant:

“The dispute between me and my wife cropped up about oneweek after the marriage of my eldest daughter for the first timewhen she asked for shifting of a cot from one room to anotherand when I stated on that day, it was not auspicious and it canrdbe changed, she got it shifted despite I objected through 3persons and I asked her to leave the room.There were no anydifferences between us even prior to that or later other thanthis. When I questioned for her shifting despite my objectionshe got called her brothers and others and rowdy elements. Idid not lodge any police complaint about any rowdy elementsbrought by my wife against me. It is not true to say that I am aman of uncontrolled emotions and provocations and for nothing I raised galata and bet my wife and broken hermangalasuthram and I made it into pieces which is now shownto me in pieces and sent her out and that it is only then herbrothers came to persuade me.”

At another place, he said:

“It is true that the letters written by my wife relied on by me nowhere discloses any disharmony between me and my wife soalso from the contents of my letters to her filed by me.”

One rarely comes across a person, who treats an incidentmentioned in the above paragraph as the basis for snappingthe matrimonial relationship, that lasted for 3 ½ decades. Thefirst step which the appellant took for the shifting of the cot fromone room to another by the respondent was that he has drivenaway the respondent and their daughter from the house, as isevident from Para (e) of the O.P. extracted above.

There cannot be a more cruel behaviour or conduct thanthis. Without stopping and repenting at that, he has filed theO.P. for divorce.

The nature of harassment caused to the respondent isevident from the following suggestions made to the appellant inhis cross-examination:

“It is not true to say that there are documents in my office toshow that the property belongs to my wife as declared by me. It is not true to say that on 3.11.1977 I harassed my wife andinsisted her to transfer property in my name. It is not true tosay that the entire house is under the possession andenjoyment of my wife. In the year 1998, I purchased washingmachine in my name. Prior to that, we used to wash theclothes without the assistance of the machine. It is not true to say that in the year 1998, I pressed the neck of my wifecaught held of her tuft and also attempted to cut the throat ofthe respondent with vegetable knife and that the brother of therespondent and my son came to rescue the respondent. I donot know whether my wife has lodged police complaint duringsuch circumstances vide crime No.270/98 before P.S.Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Witness adds that I came to knowabout the lodging of such complaint only through theirpleadings in O.S.No.176/99. It is not true to say that I haveinfluence of police as such I got managed the final reportwithout filing the charge sheet.”

He admitted that he did not attend the marriage of his seconddaughter, inspite of knowledge and information, and that he didnot contribute anything for it. P.W.2 is the maternal uncle of theappellant. Except stating that he too did not attend themarriage of the second daughter of the appellant, and that hearranged for the piles operation of the appellant, he did notstate anything, which is relevant for the purpose of this case. Itwas suggested to him that the appellant is addicted to vices,and his plea that he used to go to Ramakrishna Mutt is nottrue. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the employees of A.G. office andsubordinates to the appellant. Their evidence is absolutely ofno use.

Coming to the evidence of the respondent, not only shereiterated the contents in the counter filed in the O.P., but hertwo daughters have supported her case. If one looks into thecontents of the cross-examination of R.Ws.2 and 3, thedaughters of the appellant and the respondent, lack of cultureon the part of the appellant would be manifest. For all practicalpurposes, it can be said that the appellant treated his two daughters as his enemies. The documentary evidence wasmostly in relation to the claim made by the respondent aboutthe amounts and property. Even if the O.P. and the evidence ofthe appellant herein are taken on their face value, one justcannot think of granting a decree for divorce, dissolving themarriage that subsisted for 35 years. It is only the unguidedsuperiority of the appellant and his feeling that being husbandof a woman and father of children, he can do whatever hethinks, that appear to be the cause for the present state ofaffairs.

This Court is, indeed, shocked at the frivolous nature ofthe grounds pleaded by the appellant for seeking divorceagainst the respondent. It also demonstrates typical malechauvinism. The only strength of the appellant is the weaknessof the respondent, which is generated, on account of herunstinted respect for family values. The appellant has mistookthe respect given to him for licence to do whatever he wants. This can be the result of total lack of culture and regard for thescruples. He has grossly misused the facility created under theAct for proper and extreme situations. His conduct deserves tobe deprecated.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed, with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the respondent, withintwo (2) months, from today.

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appealshall stand dismissed.

______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

________________

M.S.K. JAISWAL,

J.

30[th] December, 2013

Note: LR copy to be marked.

(b/o)

cbs

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

AND

C.M.A.No.2703 of 2003

30[th] December, 2013

Note: LR copy to be marked.

(b/o) cbs