Back
2019 Supreme(AP) 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Seetharama Murti, J. Uma Devi, JJ.
D. Subramanyam Raju - Appellants
Vs.
D. Lakshmi Devi - Respondent
FCA No. 147 of 2015
Decided On : 30-04-2019
For the Appellant : L.J. Veera Reddy
For the Respondents: Maheswara Rao Kunchem
Headnote:
Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 19 – Dowry Prohibition Act – Sections 3 and 4 – Penal code, 1860 – Sections 498-A ,420, 406, 452 and 365 r/w Section 511 – Cruelty – Appeal against decree and order, passed by Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge – Petitioner (Husband) petition was dismissed by trial family court – Seeking divorce – Held, In light of facts and evidence possibility of reunion between spouses not unthinkable and as wife is still interested in saving marriage – Spouses lived together voluntarily even after institution of this instant petition for divorce by husband is indicia of fact that husband not seriously interested in seeking divorce and that in any view of matter, he is prepared to overlook non-cooperative attitude, if any – On part of respondent that in fact he condoned such conduct, if any, of the wife by leading family life with her and thus, waived the grounds on which the petition was filed – Evidence, facts & circumstances of case and on consideration of contentions of Counsel for respondent-wife, which merit consideration – Contention of husband that he is entitled to divorce on ground of cruelty particularly mental cruelty does not stand test of scrutiny and that in that view of matter, he is not entitled to seek divorce on said ground – Appeal Dismissed (Paras 23 to 26)
Facts of the case:
Cruelty – Appeal against decree and order, passed by Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge – Appellant (Husband) petition was dismissed by trial family court - Seeking divorce and that in any view of matter
Findings of the court:
Contention of petitioner-husband that marriage is broken down irretrievably and marriage is dead for all purposes and it cannot be revived is unacceptable – In light of facts and evidence possibility of reunion between spouses not unthinkable and as wife is still interested in saving marriage – Spouses lived together voluntarily even after institution of this instant petition for divorce by husband is indicia of fact that husband not seriously interested in seeking divorce and that in any view of matter, he is prepared to overlook non-cooperative attitude, if any – On part of respondent that in fact he condoned such conduct, if any, of the wife by leading family life with her and thus, waived the grounds on which the petition was filed – Evidence, facts & circumstances of case and on consideration of contentions of Counsel for respondent-wife, which merit consideration – Contention of husband that he is entitled to divorce on ground of cruelty particularly mental cruelty does not stand test of scrutiny and that in that view of matter, he is not entitled to seek divorce on said ground.
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful petitioner-husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the decree and order, dated 16.3.2015, of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, passed in FCOP No. 129 of 2010.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant-petitioner and of Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent. We have perused the material record.
3. The case of the appellant-petitioner-husband, in brief, is this:
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed, on 17.4.1998, at Rajampet of Kadapa District. Immediately thereafter, they had put up their family at petitioner's native village, Pottirajugaripalle of Railway Kodur Mandal of Kadapa District. The respondent is an illiterate. She was not mingling with his family members. She used to always threaten the petitioner to put up separate family. The petitioner being the only son of his parents was pacifying her. Three months after the marriage, there was a mediation at the instance of the respondent and with the assistance of her parents. At that time, the respondent threatened and not allowed anyone of the petitioner's relatives into the house. Though the elders of both the sides tried to convince her, she did not heard the words of the elders. She had left for her parental house. From that date onwards, she was frequently visiting her parental house; and, the petitioner used to bring her back. While so, on 8.7.1999, the respondent gave birth to a male child. Five months after the delivery of the boy, she came to the place of the petitioner and stayed there for two months only. During the said period of stay, she used to give trouble to the petitioner and his parents. Two of the brothers of the respondent were working in Kuwait. Respondent was insisting upon the petitioner to send her to Kuwait to work as a maid servant and earn money. The petitioner did not agree for the said proposal. Without his knowledge and with the help of her brothers, the respondent obtained a passport and visa and left for Kuwait, on 24.4.2001, despite the petitioner trying to stop her even at the Airport, Chennai. In order to bring back the respondent, the petitioner also went to Kuwait in the year 2002. However, the respondent did not join him at that place. The petitioner started working in Kuwait. Petitioner and the respondent came down to India, on 28.6.2005. After they stayed for two days in the village of the petitioner, respondent left for her parental house, while leaving the son with the petitioner. She did not return to the matrimonial home. After five days, the petitioner went to the house of. the parents of the respondent and asked her to come to his place. However, she refused to join the petitioner. Thereafter, there was a mediation. As per the advice of elders of both the sides, the petitioner and the respondent had put up their family at Indiranagar, Tirupati, in August, 2005. While staying in that house, the respondent used to question about the earnings of the petitioner at Kuwait and was insisting upon the petitioner not to question her about her earnings at Kuwait. The petitioner accepted the terms settled by the elders. On 7.9.2005, the respondent went to Kuwait without informing the petitioner and by leaving the son with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner also went to Kuwait to bring her back. However, she refused to return to India and live with the petitioner. In order to convince her, the petitioner went to the house of the employer of the respondent. She refused to meet him. On one such occasion, she got the petitioner necked out of the house of her employer. Her brothers also wanted the petitioner not to talk to the respondent. When the petitioner's mother fell sick and when the petitioner was coming to India, on 6.2.2007, the respondent refused to acco
