Back
1990 Supreme(AP) 68
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Kalapala Babu Rao - Appellant
Versus
Kalapala Ammaji - Respondent
Decided On : 02-20-90
A wife has a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of her husband if she has a reasonable apprehension of danger to her life or the life of her children.
Headnote:
INDIAN DIVORCE ACT - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF UNCHASTITY - REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF DANGER - MENTAL CRUELTY - DENIAL OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that the two children born to his wife were not his but were born through some other person. The wife denied the allegations and stated that the husband made the unfounded allegations due to a dispute over property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the children were born during the valid marriage of the parties and that there was no evidence to show that the husband had no access to his wife during the relevant period. The court also found that the husband's allegation that the children were not his was unfounded and was made with the intention of depriving his wife of her claims to property.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband's unfounded allegations of unchastity against his wife constituted mental cruelty. 2. Whether the wife had a reasonable apprehension of danger to her life and the life of her children if she were to live with her husband.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the husband's unfounded allegations of unchastity against his wife constituted mental cruelty. The court relied on the definition of cruelty in Russel vs. Russel, which states that cruelty is conduct that causes danger to life, limb, or health, bodily or mentally, or gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. The court found that the husband's allegations had caused the wife to apprehend danger to her life and the life of her children, and that this apprehension was reasonable in light of the husband's conduct. 2. The court held that the wife had a reasonable apprehension of danger to her life and the life of her children if she were to live with her husband. The court considered the husband's unfounded allegations of unchastity, his withdrawal from the society of his wife contrary to the arrangement agreed to at the time of the marriage, and the fact that the husband's father claimed the entire property of 20 acres as his self-acquired property with a view to deprive the minor children of their right to have a share.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
( 1 ) THIS case illustrates the typical mentality of a husband who, out of greed to the property belonging to the foster father of his wife, made a mockery of the oath taken at the time of the marriage that he would live with her with all love and affection, denied the parentage of the two minor children thus indirectly referring to the unchastity of his wife, which no indian woman can tolerate for such an insinuation by no less a person than her husband. This unfounded castigation has given rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife (respondent) of danger to her life and also of her minor children and made her to live apart from the company of her husband. Now, the husband seeks the company of his wife pleading that he made the remarks on the spur of the moment or in a fit of anger.
( 2 ) THE appellant-petitioner, who is unemployed, is the husband of the respondent. Both belong to Christain religion. The husband filed a petition in the District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam, under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said order, the husband filed the present appeal. It is convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the lower Court.
( 3 ) THE marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 19-5-1972 as per the Christian custom and usage in CSI church at the petitioner s village, Kalavapamula in Krishna District. Later the marriage was consummated. The respondent is no other than the daughter of the paternal aunt of the petitioner. The petitioner s father who is examined as P. W-2 has got two sisters. The first sister was given in marriage to Sriramulu, R. W-2,a native of Tenneru village, Krishna district. Another sister was given in marriage to R. W-3, the natural father of the respondent. P. W-2 is the son of R. W-2 s elder sister. R. W-2 and his wife have no children and therefore they fostered the respondent.
( 4 ) THE petitioner s father has got three sons. The petitioner is the second son. As they are closely related and as R. W-2 brought up R. W-1, the marriage was arranged and was performed at Kalavapamula Church and the consummation took place at Tenneru, the native place of R. W-2. R. W. 2 has got 5 acres of land by the date of the marriage of the respondent. Subsequently, his wife died and he sold some property and kept some money in the name of the children of the respondent. R. W-2 insisted that both the petitioner and the respondent should stay with him during the later part of his life. R. W-2 also purchased some property at Kalavapamula and the same was sold and in that connection there was some litigation at the instance of P. W-2. By 1983 differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent in connection with the property held by R. W-2. On 17-4-1985 the petitioner issued a notice, Ex. A-2, to his wife alleging that the two children were not born to her through him and they were through some other person. The respondent issued a reply notice which is marked as ex. A-3, denying the allegations and also stating that as the property was not kept in tbe name of the petitioner, be raised a dispute and also made unfounded allegations about her chastity. In that reply notice itself she has also expressed her desire to take steps for claiming maintenance for her and for her children also.
( 5 ) THE petitioner is examined as P. W-1. The petitioner s father is examined as P-W-2 and two more witnesses are examined on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent she hersell was examined as R. W-1 her foster father was examined as R. W-2, her natural father as R. W-3 and another neighbour and an elderly person of Tenneru village was examined as R. W-4. On an evaluation of the entire evidence on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that ths children were born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and
