Cruelty by one spouse towards the other can be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and can also bar the other spouse from obtaining restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

Headnote:
FAMILY COURT - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - DIVORCE - MAINTENANCE - [SECTION 9, 13(1)(IA), 23 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955] - PETITION FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS FILED BY WIFE DISMISSED - PETITION FOR DIVORCE FILED BY HUSBAND ALLOWED - WIFE'S APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL OF HER PETITION AND HUSBAND'S APPEAL AGAINST GRANT OF MAINTENANCE DISMISSED - WIFE SUBJECTED HUSBAND TO CRUELTY - HUSBAND ENTITLED TO DIVORCE - WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - MAINTENANCE OF RS.30,00,000/- GRANTED TO WIFE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:

Wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The trial court dismissed the wife's petition and allowed the husband's petition, granting him a decree of divorce and directing him to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the wife. The wife appealed against the dismissal of her petition, and the husband appealed against the grant of permanent alimony.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty, including physical and mental abuse, humiliation, and harassment. The court also found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no chance of reconciliation. The court held that the husband was entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruelty and that the wife was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. The court also upheld the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the wife.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty. 2. Whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down. 3. Whether the wife was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. 4. Whether the husband was entitled to a divorce. 5. Whether the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the wife was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, includes behavior that causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is not safe to continue the marital relationship. 2. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Act, but it is a weighty circumstance that can be considered by the court in deciding whether to grant a divorce. 3. A spouse who has subjected the other spouse to cruelty is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights. 4. A spouse who has been subjected to cruelty by the other spouse is entitled to a divorce. 5. The amount of permanent alimony to be granted to a spouse depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the earning capacity of the spouse who is required to pay alimony.
Final Decision: The wife's appeal against the dismissal of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the husband's appeal against the grant of permanent alimony were both dismissed. The trial court's order granting a decree of divorce to the husband and directing him to pay Rs.30,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the wife was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all the appeals arising out of Common Order and Decree dated 06.12.2019 in FCOP Nos.137 of 2013 & 341 of 2014 and parties also same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. The appellant/wife filed FCA Nos.36 and 39 of 2020 against orders in FCOP No.137 of 2013 dismissing petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her and allowing FCOP No.341 of 2014 filed by the respondent/husband for grant of decree of divorce, on the file of Judge, Family Court at Warangal and respondent/husband filed FCA No.34 of 2014 against granting of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only).

3. The trial Court recorded common evidence in both the FCOPs and taken the pleadings of the parties in FCOP No.137 of 2013 for disposal. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in FCOP No.137 of 2013.

4. Smt. Kuraganti @ Eathakota Sapna, hereinafter will be referred to as petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.No.137 of 2013 for grant of restitution of conjugal rights against Dr. Sri Eathakota Ramesh Kumar, hereinafter will be referred to as respondent/husband under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent filed FCOP No.341 of 2014 for grant of decree of divorce from petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals, are as follows:

It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 29.10.2001 and they were blessed with two daughters namely E.Rupin Kamlini and E.Sancia. Since the date of marriage, the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent and his parents including family members. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the respondent abused the petitioner in filthy language, subjecting her to both physical and mental torture during his posting at Madhya Pradesh till the year 2012; that after his posting to Visakhapatnam from Madhya Pradesh, the respondent, including parents along with his brother and sister, harassed the petitioner and forced her to commit suicide; that even though the petitioner is an Electrical & Electronics Engineering Graduate, she was not allowed to do job by the respondent and she was forced to depend on the income of the respondent for all her necessities; that the respondent constantly demanded for additional dowry and they were trying to eliminate her and her children from his life; that the petitioner was waiting for a change in the attitude of the respondent with a hope that he will realize the importance and value of his wife and marriage tie; that the father-in-law of the petitioner wrote several letters to the Bishop at Dornakal complaining against the Panchayath Head, Rev.Padma Rao, the then Pastor of Khammam, C.S. I Church, Rev.Padma Rao headed the panchayat organized by the respondent and his family members at Khammam. Since the head of the panchayat did not support the respondent and his family and their harassment on the petitioner, her father-in-law wrote letter to Bishop to transfer Rev. Padma Rao and in a letter written to the bishop her father-in-law mentioned about the petitioner "the petitioner is non-cooperative in family affairs including sexual life"; that the petitioner was subjected to mental harassment on petty issues and one such issue was that she was forced to apologize for not using the coconut in the chutney; that the respondent has two faces, one for society and other for petitioner and her children; that the respondent beat her, threw her into bathroom, twisted chunni around her neck tightly and made her to suffocate and dragged her out of bathroom and detained in the closed room till the next day morning and stated that he would torture her till the core if she is killed, no one knows her face and it is difficult for anyone to identify her body. That on many occasions, the respondent damaged her