Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, V.Srinivas, JJ.
Boddu Jaya Krishna, Secunderabad - Appellant
Versus
Boddu Naga Praveena - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 30 and 190 of 2017
Decided On : 19-09-2023
Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13(1)(ia) - Section 9 - Section 12 - Section 13 - Section 12 r/w.13 - Section 12(2)(b)(ii) - Section 5 of Limitation - Article 142 of Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the respondent had premarital sex and terminated her pregnancy. The respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that the appellant deserted her without reasonable cause.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the appellant failed to prove the alleged cruelty and that the respondent was willing to reconcile. The court dismissed the divorce petition and granted the restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent.
Issues: The court considered whether the marriage was vitiated and null and void, whether the respondent was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights, and whether there were grounds to set aside the trial court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant failed to prove the alleged premarital relationship and termination of pregnancy by the respondent, and the court found no evidence of cruelty. The respondent's willingness to reconcile and the appellant's desertion without reasonable cause led to the grant of restitution of conjugal rights.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, confirming the trial court's order and decree, with no order as to costs.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized the importance of concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of cruelty in matrimonial disputes. Mere allegations without supporting proof are insufficient to establish cruelty (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that long periods of separation, absence of cohabitation, and a breakdown of marital bonds can be indicative of cruelty, especially when such conduct renders the continuation of the marriage intolerable (!) (!) .
Mental cruelty can be established through conduct causing significant mental pain, anguish, or suffering, which may include repeated neglect, abusive behavior, or persistent unjustified conduct affecting the spouse’s mental health (!) (!) .
The burden of proof lies on the party alleging cruelty or other grounds for divorce, and such allegations must be supported by credible evidence. Unsubstantiated or false allegations are not sufficient for granting a decree of divorce (!) (!) .
The court observed that allegations of premarital relations and termination of pregnancy, without substantive proof, are not enough to declare a marriage null and void. The timing and evidence regarding such allegations are critical, and mere oral claims without corroborative evidence are inadequate (!) (!) .
The limitation period for filing a petition for nullity or divorce under specific sections of the Hindu Marriage Act is strict. Petitions filed beyond the prescribed time frame are barred by law, and the court cannot invoke equitable considerations to bypass statutory limitations (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the marriage was vitiated or null and void due to alleged premarital misconduct. The evidence did not substantiate the claims of infidelity or non-consummation, and the allegations were deemed untrue or unproven (!) (!) .
Regarding restitution of conjugal rights, the court noted that the respondent demonstrated willingness to reunite and efforts were made by her and her family to maintain the marriage. The appellant’s desertion without reasonable cause justified the grant of restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent (!) (!) .
The overall assessment was that the appellant failed to establish grounds for cruelty or that the marriage was invalid. The court upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing the appeals and confirming the orders for restitution of conjugal rights (!) (!) .
No costs were awarded, and interim orders previously granted were vacated, with pending miscellaneous petitions closed (!) (!) .
In summary, the court prioritized credible evidence, adherence to statutory limitations, and the overall conduct of the parties in making its decisions, ultimately dismissing the appeals and affirming the original orders.
COMMON JUDGMENT
V. Srinivas, J. - These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order and decree dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tanuku in O.P.Nos.148 of 2012 and 42 of 2015.
2. The appellant herein is the husband of the respondent. He filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, vide H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2015, before the trial court against his wife, seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between them held on 12.11.2011 on the ground of cruelty and the same was dismissed by the trial Court.
3. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, vide H.M.O.P.No.148 of 2012, to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights directing the appellant to lead marital life with her and the same was allowed by the trial Court.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/husband preferred the present appeals.
5. The case of the appellant herein in brief is as follows:
i. The marriage between the appellant and respondent solemnized on 12.11.2011as per Hindu rites and custom at Kshatriya Kalyanamandapam, Tanuku. But their marriage was not consummated.
ii. On the first night of 16.11.2011, the respondent did not show any interest or cooperate with him, and she started sobbing and the appellant tried to console her and asked the reason. Then she revealed that when she was residing at Kakinada along with her parents, she fallen love with a person and the same was opposed by her parents and she became pregnant through him, and her parents shifted to Tanuku and got terminated her pregnancy. By saying so, she has been shown the pregnancy stretch marks on her abdomen to make him believe that and she did not accept her marriage with him.
iii. She also informed that the said person came to Tanuku after marriage and created nuisance in public. She requested her husband not to reveal the issue to anyone and she would herself resolve it. Due to her confession, there was no consummation of marriage and he decided to go back to his home and her parents forced her to go with him to Hyderabad.
iv. On 21.11.2011, in the evening, she complained pain in her stomach and hence, she was taken to their family doctor and while the doctor sought to checkup her, she created nuisance by shouting and on knowing the same he went to clinic and brought her and his mother to home.
v. On the next day her parents and one Krishna Prasad came and the said Krishna Prasad, who has nothing to do with the family, abused and created nuisance. Then her parents took her back to Tanuku by saying that they would settle the matter.
vi. Again on 22.07.2011, she brought a group of people to his house at Bhilai and then he left due to fear.
vii. Marriage is a farce, vitiated by misrepresentation and fraud. In the light of the misconduct admitted by her, the marriage is to be declared as void. The marriage is to be dissolved on the grounds of suppression of material facts.
6. The case of the respondent/wife in brief is as follows:
i. She admitted their relationship and date of marriage. She further averred that at the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.15,00,000/-towards dowry and half sovereign gold ring to the appellant.
ii. She observed that he had not much interest in her, even in the first night and during the three nights no consummation took place, though she showed much interest in consummation, but he created mental harassment to her.
iii. On the next day, her mother-in-law asked her to accompany to their family doctor at Satya Clinic Malkajgiri, Secundrabad and the lady doctor by name Arathi asked her to undress and then she questioned the doctor and the doctor asked her mother-in-law why she was brought to her without informing about the virgin test and the doctor sent them away by saying that she will not conduct virgin test unless the respondent gives consent and it will be done at government hospital.
iv. Then she informed the same to her parents, and on the next day her parents vis
The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove allegations of cruelty and the importance of willingness to reconcile in cases of restitution of conjugal rights.
Trivial disputes between spouses do not constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging such cruelty.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of 'cruelty' under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and 'desertion' under Section 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and ....
The court clarified that normal marital disagreements do not constitute cruelty and emphasized the need for clear evidence to prove desertion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a weighty circumstance necessitating the severance of marital ties.
The court affirmed that the evidence of persistent cruelty justified the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, establishing a clear breakdown of the marital relat....
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
