2015 Supreme(AP) 62
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
RAMESH RANGANATHAN & M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
S. Sri Ravi – Petitioner
Versus
S. Manasa – Respondent
C.M.A.M.P. No. 989 of 2014 & C.M.A. No. 127 of 2005
Decided On : 09-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Deepak Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Hari Haran, Advocate.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1) (ia) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 - Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A – Divorce petition - Offence punishable - Mutual divorce - Scheduled caste community - Petitioner filed petition to dissolve marriage between petitioner and respondent granting decree of divorce alleging that petitioner belongs to Naidu community and respondent belongs to scheduled caste - While petitioner was studying intermediate in a tutorial college met respondent who represented that she also belongs to Naidu community - Therefore they fell in love - Thereafter petitioner came to know that respondent belongs to scheduled caste - On coming to know about same petitioner requested respondent to discontinue love affair but due to force of respondent their marriage was performed at Hyderabad on without informing their parents - Respondent arranged reception – Later petitioner and respondent set up separate family in a rented house belonging to one Police Constable – Held, Petitioner linking up his character with friends mother sisters and other women but failed to substantiate same - In addition to that filed series of complaints against petitioner but failed to substantiate charges leveled against him - However trial Court, without considering fact of making unfounded unholy and unethical allegations against petitioner dismissed petition on ground that petitioner failed to prove alleged cruelty - As finding of trial Court is erroneous in view of law laid down by Apex Court in decisions referred supra - Hence find that trial Court committed grave error in dismissing petition and thereby finding of trial Court is liable to be set aside – Accordingly set aside finding of trial Court holding this point in favor of petitioner and against respondent - Appeal allowed (Para 32)
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. The unsuccessful petitioner in O.P.No. 273 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court'), preferred this appeal challenging the dismissal order dated 22-09-2004.
2. For convenience of reference, the parties to the appeal are ranked as in O.P.No. 273 of 1999 before the trial Court throughout the judgment.
3. The petitioner filed petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1955'), to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granting decree of divorce alleging that the petitioner belongs to Naidu community and the respondent belongs to scheduled caste. While the petitioner was studying intermediate in a tutorial college, he met the respondent who represented that she also belongs to Naidu community. Therefore, they fell in love. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the respondent belongs to scheduled caste. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner requested the respondent to discontinue the love affair but, due to force of the respondent, their marriage was performed at Arya Samaj, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad, on 15-04-1994 without informing their parents.
On coming to know about the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, the father of the petitioner necked him out on 12-11-1995. On 16-11-1995, the parents of the respondent arranged reception. Later, the petitioner and the respondent set up separate family at Bowenpally in a rented house belonging to one Srinivas Reddy, Police Constable. From 16-11-1995, the respondent started suspecting the petitioner on petty issues and used to abuse him in filthy language. In the first week of December, 1995, the parents of the respondent came to the house of the petitioner; in spite of his protest, they consumed liquor in the house and, when questioned, the parents of the respondent beat the petitioner. They also abused the petitioner in filthy language and insulted him in the presence of his friends while demanding the petitioner to shift his residence to the house of the parents of the respondent and to pay entire salary of the petitioner to the respondent. The petitioner was working as accounts assistant in Bambino Agro Limited and used to attend outdoor work too but the respondent used to pickup quarrel with the petitioner suspecting that the petitioner was meeting his girlfriends. In the second week of January, 1996, the petitioner came to know that the respondent also habituated to drinking and demanded the petitioner to provide drink but the petitioner requested the respondent to change her behaviour. Thereupon, the respondent insulted him that he is an impotent and have no guts.
In the month of February, 1996, the petitioner shifted his residence from Bowenpally to Mirjalguda. In the second week of February, henchmen of the respondent came to the office of the petitioner and threatened him that they would kill him if he failed to accede to the demands of the respondent and her parents. The respondent gave birth to a male child Nikhil on 28-03-1997. Since then, the respondent started demanding the petitioner to insist for half share in the property. The respondent also used to note down mileage of motorcycle of the petitioner suspecting the petitioner and also threatened the petitioner to commit suicide if the petitioner attended any function. As there was no change in the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner approached Women Counselling Center at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, on 29-07-1994 but the counseling efforts were proved futile. Thus, the respondent caused physical and mental pain by her acts and omissions and her parents also caused physical injury by beating which created a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful for him to live with the respondent. The respondent invented several ways and means i.e. lodging complaints against the petitioner without any re