Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 1404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Tamanampudi Vijaya Bhavani W/o Vijaya Kumar Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Tamanampudi Vijaya Kumar Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 911, 933 of 2005
Decided On : 30-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Subba Reddy.
For the Respondent: N. Subba Rao.

Long-term separation leading to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage can constitute mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce.

Headnote:
Cruelty - Divorce - Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sec. 498-A of IPC - Sec. 13(1)(ia) - Sec. 10 - Sec. 13 - Sec. 13(1) - Sec. 13(1)(ia) - Sec. 13(1)(i-a) - Sec. 13(1)(i-b) - Sec. 13(1)(ii)-(ix)
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the case of divorce filed by the Respondent/Husband on the grounds of cruelty, while dismissing the petition of the Appellant/Wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, leading to mental cruelty due to long-term separation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to long-term separation, leading to mental cruelty. The Appellant/Wife's offer to continue the marital relationship was deemed insincere due to the lack of effort for reconciliation over the years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court was right in granting divorce to the Respondent/Husband on the ground of cruelty, while dismissing the petition of the Appellant/Wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that long-term separation can lead to mental cruelty, and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage justifies granting a divorce, despite the absence of a specific ground for irretrievable breakdown in the law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the Order granting divorce to the Respondent/Husband and dismissing the petition of the Appellant/Wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Common Order, dated 31.03.2005, passed in O.P. 55 of 2002 and O.P. 27 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, allowing the application filed by the Respondent/Husband for divorce, while dismissing the application filed by the Appellant/Wife for restitution of conjugal rights, the present Appeals came to be filed.

2. The facts, in the O.P. No. 55 of 2002, are as under:

(i) The marriage between the Respondent/Husband and Appellant/Wife herein was solemnized on 07.05.1998. Out of the wedlock, a female child, by name Pratyusha was born on 11.09.1999. It is said that, at the time of marriage the parents of the Appellant/Wife promised to give Ac. 5.00 of land and a portion of house to her towards pasupukunkuma. It is further said that Rs. 1,50,000/- was given to Respondent/Husband in the presence of elders, by name, Nallamilli Venkata Krishna Reddy and Medapati Srirama Reddy. Also, Rs.1,00,000/- was given towards adapaduchukatnam.

(ii) It is said that Ac. 3.35 cents of land and a house portion was given to the Appellant/Wife at Pentapadu. It is said that the father-in-law of the Appellant/Wife was residing at Peraigudem and visits their house now and then. It is said that the mother-in-law of the Appellant/Wife developed hatred towards her and used to find fault with her work. During 3rd month pregnancy of the Appellant/Wife, her mother-in-law removed the maidservant and extracted the household work jeopardizing the health of the Appellant/Wife. The parents of the Appellant/Wife brought her to Pentapadu on seeing her health condition, wherein, the Respondent/Husband used to visit and stay with her for some days. It is said that, during the 6th to 9th month of pregnancy, the Appellant/Wife went to Pentapadu for treatment, as then Respondent/Husband and her mother-in-law neglected medical care and did not provide food.

(iii) It is said that, after the birth of the child, the Respondent/Husband and her in-laws did not turn up to take the Appellant/Wife with them. However, after lot of persuasion and after the 5th month of delivery, the Appellant/Wife was taken for kapuram along with saresamans. Since the Appellant/Wife brought only few sare samans and failed to bring expected sare articles, her mother-in-law demanded that unless balance Ac. 1.65 cents and another Rs. 1,00,000/- was brought, no servant-maid would be engaged and the Appellant/Wife would be treated as servant-maid. It is said that, the mother-in-law of the Appellant/Wife used to beat her and snatched away her child forcefully, confining in a room by locking her for days together thereby causing mental harassment to her.

(iv) It is said that, in the month of January, 2002, the parents of the Appellant/Wife came to Peraigudem and requested the Respondent/Husband and the Appellant/Wife to come to pongal festival, but he refused the same. However, the Appellant/Wife was sent on a condition that her parents should deliver the original document in respect of Ac. 3.35 cents of land and portion of the house and also provide remaining Ac. 1.65 cents and Rs.1,00,000/- towards sare saman. Thus, the Appellant/Wife along with her child went to Pentapadu and stayed with her parents for fifteen days. It is said that the father of the Appellant/Wife handed over passbook for Ac. 3.35 cents and original title deed of house portion given to her. But, her parents could not purchase the remaining Ac. 1.65 cents of land, for which the Respondent/Husband grew wild and left her and her child at Pentapadu. The said incident was witnessed by one Karri Satyanarayana Chari and Karri Subbi Reddy.

(v) It is said that, though, the Respondent/Husband and his parents committed offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC, the Appellant/Wife did not give any report to keep harmony of the family. However, the Appellant/Wife received a legal notice dated 01.04.2002 with false allegations. It is said that, a reply notice was sent on 21.05.2002 offeri