Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
L. Narasimha Reddy & B.N. Rao Nalla, JJ.
Namuduri Srinivasa Sreeramachandra
Murthy —Appellant
versus
K. Radha —Respondent
F.C.A.Nos.296 of 2010 & 299 of 2010
Decided on 29-04-2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Pappu Srinivasa Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B. Anjaneyulu, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty, to constitute a ground for granting a decree for divorce, need not be the one resulting in bodily injuries to the aggrieved spouse. It would be sufficient, if through his or her acts, omissions and gestures one spouse has caused mental agony, anguish and discomfort to the other, to the level of rendering the cohabitation impossible.
Headnote:Family Courts Act, 1984—Section 19(1) –Divorce petition filed by appellant husband—Petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by respondent wife— Trial Court dismissed Divorce petition filed by appellant husband but decreed Petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by respondent wife –Appeals thereagainst—Evidence on record, demonstrated that cruelty, if at all, was on the part of appellant towards respondent— Respondent wife eagerly and respectably joined his company, but was driven out, on account of the greed and narrow—mindedness of appellant— The sad part of the matter was that for each of his untenable acts, appellant took shelter under the custom and religion— Appellant did not possess the basic requirements of an ordinary living and he expected them to be fetched by his wife— One cannot expect the life partner of such person to be satisfied, much less comfortable— Appellant miserably failed to prove the acts of cruelty on the part of respondent—Appeals having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 22 to 24)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—These two family Court appeals, under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.
2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 12.04.2007 at Hyderabad. The respondent was employed in ICICI Bank. It appears that loan of about Rs.2 lakhs was raised by the family of the respondent from the said Bank. At the threshold of the marriage itself, the appellant expressed his displeasure about the employment of the respondent and the borrowing of the loan to be repaid through deductions from her salary. The simmering differences resulted in their living separately, within a short time.
3. The respondent filed O.P.No.96 of 2008 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for a decree directing restitution of conjugal rights between her and the appellant. The O.P. was transferred to the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, and was renumbered as O.P.No.111 of 2008. Almost all the same point of time, a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., was also filed by her for maintenance. After receiving a notice in O.P.No.111 of 2008, the appellant filed a counter opposing the same. It was pleaded that the fault is with the respondent and that to cover up her lapses, she filed the O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also stated that the nuptials were not performed after the marriage.
4. Thereafter, extensive correspondence ensued between the parties. On his part, the appellant filed O.P.No.167 of 2009 in the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, against the respondent, for divorce. He pleaded that the respondent suppressed the information as to her being employed and raising of loan and that inspite of his request to resign the job, she did not accede to his request. He has narrated the other events that are said to have taken place, when the respondent joined him, soon after the marriage at a flat and the one that occurred in his house at Amalapuram. He stated that the respondent is adamant and not cooperative and that her actions and omissions constitute cruelty.
5. The respondent filed a counter opposing the O.P. She made a detailed reference to the correspondence that ensued between them and stated that the appellant and his father prevented her from joining their family on one pretext or the other. It was also urged that a petition for divorce was filed, as counter-blast for the O.P. filed by her, under Section 9 of the Act.
6. Through common order, dated 19.10.2010, the trial Court dismissed O.P.No.167 of 2009 and decreed O.P.No.111 of 2008 with costs. Hence, these two appeals.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court erred in recording findings to the effect that the respondent is not guilty of the acts constituting cruelty. He submits that the respondent suppressed the information about her being employed and obtaining of loan from the Bank and that she was distrustful towards the appellant. He further submits that the very fact that the respondent filed a maintenance case, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is sufficient to conclude that she is interested more in money than sustaining the matrimony. He contends that the respondent failed to join the matrimonial home and left the place without there being any provocation. He submits that the trial Court ought to have decreed O.P.No.167 of 2009 filed for divorce, once it is found that there is no possibility for the parties to live together, and ought to have dismissed O.P.No.111 of 2008 filed for restitution of conjugal rights.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the averments made in the O.P. filed by the appellant are totally incorrect and that even if they are taken into account, it cannot be said that they constitute
