Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.MADHUSUDAN RAO, S.OBUL REDDY
Guntupali Rama Subbaiah - Appellant
Versus
Guntupalli Rajamma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-05-74
Dowry - Prohibition of Dowry Act - Return of Dowry - Custom - Limitation - Andhra Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Act, 1958 - Central Act, 1961 - Section 3, 5, 6 - Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a husband, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent, his wife, filed a suit for maintenance and return of dowry. The lower court decreed the wife's suit and dismissed the husband's petition, finding that the husband was having an illicit relationship with his brother's wife and that the wife had not deserted him without reasonable cause. The husband appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the findings and that the wife's claim for return of dowry was barred by the Prohibition of Dowry Act and Article 113 of the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the finding that the husband was having an illicit relationship with his brother's wife, and that the wife had not deserted him without reasonable cause. The court also found that the wife was entitled to return of the dowry paid by her father at the time of the marriage, as the Prohibition of Dowry Act did not prohibit the return of dowry paid prior to the commencement of the Act, and the claim was not barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that the husband was having an illicit relationship with his brother's wife and that the wife had not deserted him without reasonable cause. 2. Whether the wife was entitled to return of the dowry paid by her father at the time of the marriage, considering the Prohibition of Dowry Act and the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence, including the testimony of the wife, her father, and the husband's brother, supported the finding that the husband was having an illicit relationship with his brother's wife, and that the wife had not deserted him without reasonable cause. 2. The court held that the Prohibition of Dowry Act did not prohibit the return of dowry paid prior to the commencement of the Act, and that the claim was not barred by limitation, as no issue was raised in the lower court and the question of limitation was not argued.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's appeals and confirmed the judgment and decrees of the lower court.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are these; The 1st respondent was married to theappellant about 11 years prior to herfifing an application under Or. 33, Rule 1-C. P. C. for permission to sue In Forma Pauperis. Very soon after the marriage, it is the case of the respondent that her husband started Ill-treating her having developed illicit intimacy with his brother s wife. She hoped that some change may come in her husband. She bore the ill-treatment meted out to her with patience; but as the husband had subjected her to ill-treatment beyond her capacity to bear, she went to live with her parents. Her husband then gave a notice and filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that she had, without reasonable cause, deserted him Her defence In the petition is the same as what she averred in her plaint In the suit. According to her, she required a minimum of Rs. 5o/- per- mensem for food and clothing in addition to provision for separate residence. She also claimed return of the dowry of rs. 2,000/- and other articles of the value of Rs. 850/- given to her husband by her father at the time of the marriage on the ground of custom and usage prevailing in the Karri ma caste to which they belong. In the written state- prinment filed by the appellant, he denied having received any dowry or any articles as presentation at the time of his marriage. He also disputed her claim for maintenance on tha ground that he was always ready and willing to maintain her and had not neglected or deserted her.
( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge framed appropriate issues and found that the appellant is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights on account of his illicit intimacy with hfs brother s wife. For the same reasons, he allowed her claim for maintenance at the rate of rs. 30/- per mensem from the date of the suit and past maintenance at the same rate for one year and recovery of Rs. 2,000/-pald towards dowry.
( 4 ) MR. A L. Narayana Rao. the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, strenuously contended that the evidence on record does not warrant that finding that the appellant was having illicit Intimacy with his brother s wife and that the 1st respondent had deserted her husband without reasonable cause. It is also contended by him that even assuming that the appellant is not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the 1st respondent s claim for return of the dowry of Rs. 2000/- on the ground of custom and usage prevailing In the Kamma community, when there is estrangement between the husband and wife, is Illegal and unenforceable in view of the provisions of the Prohibition of Dowry Act. Alternatively, It is contended by him that the 1st respondent s claim for return of the dowry is barred by Article 113 of the Limitation Act
( 5 ) WE may first consider the question whether the appellant was having Illicit intimacy with his brother s wife. The 1st respondent had not seen her husband and his sister-in-law" actually in compromising position": but says that her husband was having illicit intimacy with his brother s wife and often visiting his sister-in-law at her parent s house.
( 6 ) P. W. 3 is no other than the brother of the appellant. He does not mince words in speaking about the Illicit intimacy between his wife and his brother. He came to know about the illicit relationship In May 1962, and deserted his wife. He maintains that his brother and his wlfeare still continuing their illicit Intimacy. He remembers the date, 5th May, 1962 when he saw his wife and brother "bei
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
