HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.23 OF 2005 Date: 10-10-2014 Between:
Smt. D. Mythili. - - - Appellant.
And D.K. Brahmanaidu. - - - Respondent.
This Court made the following :
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.23 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2001, passed in Original Petition No.4 of 1997 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad (For short, ‘the trial Court), the respondent (wife) therein preferred this Appeal.
2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.P. No.4 of 1997 will be adopted throughout this judgment.
3. The petitioner (husband) filed petition against the respondent (wife), who is appellant herein, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (For short, ‘the Act’) for grant of decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, alleging that their marriage took place on 24.01.1988 at Guntur, and immediately the marriage was consummated and thereafter, the petitioner, who was working as an Officer in Canara Bank, Circle Office at Bombay, lived at Bombay until the respondent went to her parents house for delivery. Later, the petitioner was transferred to Lingasamudram, Prakasam District and accordingly shifted his family to Lingasamudram. Again in July, 1993 at his request, he was transferred to Hyderabad, where the petitioner and respondent lived together along with their two daughters in a rented house at Kalyannagar, Gaddiannaram; later, at Revenue Board Colony of Malakpet, Hyderabad.
4. The specific grounds urged in the Petition for grant of decree of divorce is cruelty, both physical and mental. The specific instances pointed out by the petitioner in the petition are as follows:
a) The respondent, who is a graduate and proficient in dance and music, is a lavish spending lady, accustomed to live in cities was reluctant to joint the company of the petitioner, when he was transferred to Lingasamudram Village in Prakasam District;
b) The respondent used to suspect fidelity of the petitioner and repeatedly enquiring about his style of living in Bombay and extra-marital relationship and his visits to red-light area in Bombay;
c) The respondent used to raise frequent quarrels with the petitioner, using vulgar language, and blamed him as womanizer in the presence of others to exhibit her supremacy;
d) In a quarrel that took place between them, the respondent exhibiting her erratic behaviour, beat the petitioner with an iron pipe, in the incident the petitioner sustained injuries;
e) The respondent, with her influence in Police department, lodged a false complaint against him in Malakpet P.S., who sent him to Government Hospital, Malakpet, where he was found with grievous injuries and in turn referred to Osmania General Hospital. The petitioner was illegally detained by Police on 01.10.1994;
f) The respondent used to leave the company of the petitioner without informing him on several occasions;
g) Even after reunion in 1994, the respondent did not change her attitude and with her rude behaviour, created an unpleasant atmosphere in his house;
h) In the second week of July, 1995, the petitioner gave an undertaking in writing to the dictation of respondent and her father, under duress, only to preserve the matrimonial life; and
i) The respondent, due to her obsessive, unfounded and imaginary feelings, ruined the matrimonial life and on 26.01.1996, after going to Guntur along with the children, the respondent expressed her decision that she will not join the petitioner and again she came to the house of the petitioner on 05.02.1996 and expressed her that she is going for divorce and took all her belongings from the house of the petitioner.
Thus, in view of the instances of cruelty referred above, the petitioner is unable to lead marital life with the respondent and prayed to grant decree of divorce.
5. The respondent filed counter denying material allegations of the petition attributing certain acts and omissions to the petitioner, which are as follows:
a) The petitioner never exhibited any love and affection towards the respondent and her children;
b) The petitioner, having settled in a respectful position, never used to give any amount to the minimum necessities of the respondent and her children, brother and father of the respondent with a view to protect them from starvation assisted them financially many times;
c) The petitioner only with a view to assassin the character of the respondent made a deliberate statement that relatives of the respondent, under the influence of alcohol tried to beat him, without naming those relatives;
d) The petitioner attacked the respondent with curtain pipe caused bleeding injuries near her left eye, and unable to bear his inhuman treatment, contacted her father, and only on the instructions of her father, when she tried to lodge a complaint in Dilsukhnagar Police Station, concerned therein directed her to lodge the complaint in Malakpet P.S. on point of jurisdiction.
e) Due to indiscriminate attitude of the petitioner, the respondent lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the petitioner; Subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached the respondent for settlement stating that he will lose his job in the event of his arrest, gave an assurance letter duly stamped on 24.10.1994, admitted his fault of beating the respondent, assuring to treat her properly by giving his salary to the respondent and come to house after office hours; believing the assurances, the respondent gave the letter to the concerned Police to drop the proceedings;
f) The petitioner played fraud on this respondent, basing on her consent letter, obtained bail and after two months started the harassment in the usual manner and physically assaulted the respondent on 26.01.1996 and finally necked out her from the house, unable to sustain herself along with her children she filed Maintenance Case No.83 of 1996; and
g) Though the respondent along with her children is ready and willing to join the company of the petitioner and lead happy marital life, the petitioner only with a view to obtain divorce from her, and get remarried destroyed the prosperous marital life with his immoral acts and actions.
Hence, there are no grounds to grant decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955 and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. During course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-32 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked.
7. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, considering oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court instead of granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955, passed an order of judicial separation exercising power under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955 observing as follows at Page No.21:
“This material itself justifies her to entertain any suspicion on him that he is womanizer and thereby it is difficult to say that this gives him right to seek divorce by claiming this as a ground of cruelty.”
At the end of same paragraph, it was held as follows:
“Therefore, her giving of 2nd police report in 1996 registered as Crime No.40 of 1996 under Section 498-A
I.P.C. appears prima-facie that is to harass him and not a bona-fide action of setting the law in motion.”
8. The trial Court disbelieving truth or otherwise in the allegations lodged in the complaint in Crime No.40 of 1996, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. observed as follows:
“This material on record clearly shows the affection and cordial marital relationship between PW.1 and RW.1 is broken down. However, taking into consideration of the welfare of the two children and their future {who are no doubt with their mother (respondent) and petitioner though not bothers to know their welfare which is clear from his cross-examination that he does not know in which school and what class they are studying} decree for judicial separation is the appropriate relief instead of divorce, from the ground of their marital tie is broken down with no affection, love or reverence between them and both not bother for marital life.”
9. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court granted a decree of judicial separation, keeping in mind the future effect of decree, on the welfare of their two children, observing that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was irretrievably broken down.
10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the respondent (wife) preferred the Appeal on various grounds. The main contentions of learned counsel for the respondent (wife) are that the decree is not in consonance with the operative portion of the order and that the trial Court did not appreciate the defence set-up by the respondent (wife) and committed an error in granting decree of judicial separation, though the ground of cruelty urged by the petitioner is not substantiated by him and finally prayed to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court.
11. During course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent (wife) contended that when the ground of cruelty is not established, question of granting judicial separation is error apparent on the face of the record, but the trial Court having observed that there is irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent without recording any finding on the cruelty, granted an order of judicial separation, which is against the purport of Section 13-A of the Act of 1955. On this ground alone, the order under challenge is liable to be set-aside and prayed to allow this Appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) argued totally in support of the finding and pointed out certain observations made by the trial Court in the order and the acts and omissions of the respondent (wife), more particularly, giving complaint to Malakpet Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the petitioner and withdrawing the same would certainly cause mental agony, as the petitioner is placed in high position in Canara Bank, and it amounts to cruelty. If the social status and economic background of the petitioner (husband) are taken into consideration, certainly the acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty. Therefore, the trial Court rightly granted decree of judicial separation and prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the order under challenge.
13. Considering rival contentions, perusing the order under challenge including the oral and documentary evidence, the sole point that arises for consideration is as follows:
Whether the respondent (wife) treated the petitioner (husband) cruelly, which created an apprehension that it is harmful or endangerous for the petitioner to live with the respondent? If so, whether the order of judicial separation is sustainable?
14. POINT: The marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent and birth of two female children to them is not in dispute, but the petitioner attributed certain acts and omissions which amount to cruelty. The first and foremost contention is that the respondent hailed from aristocratic and official family, after living with the petitioner at Bombay, declined to joint the company of the petitioner, when he was transferred to Lingasamudram. The respondent used to suspect his fidelity and repeatedly enquired about his extra-marital relationships and his visits to red-light area in Bombay. The respondent without informing the petitioner used to leave the matrimonial company and created an unpleasant atmosphere in the house of the petitioner. The respondent, due to her obsessive, unfounded and imaginary feelings, ruined the matrimonial life with her suspicious mentality. But, he did not specifically plead anything in his petition that the alleged acts of the respondent created any reasonable apprehension in his mind that it is harmful or endangerous for his life to live with the respondent. However, the Court has to take into consideration all those circumstances and decide whether those acts would create such apprehension for grant of relief either under Section 13(1)(ia) or Section 10 of the Act of 1955.
15. Section 10 deals with the circumstances under which a decree for judicial separation may be presented, and according to it, a petition may be presented for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and in case of wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) Section 13 of the Act of 1955.
16. The cruelty is a ground to grant decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955. At the same time, after amendment to the Act of 1955 in 1976, the specific provisions under Section 13-A is incorporated enabling the Courts to grant an alternative relief in divorce proceedings; according to it, in a petition filed for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, except insofar as the petition is founded on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii), (vi) and (vii) of sub- section (1) of Section 13, the Court may, if it considers it just so to do having regard to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree for judicial separation. This provision enables the Court to pass a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955, in the event the petitioner establishes the ground under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955, as an alternative relief.
17. In the present case, the trial Court did not record any finding that the respondent caused mental cruelty creating reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is harmful or endangerous to live with the respondent, but concluded that there is an irretrievable break down of marriage between the petitioner and respondent, and taking into consideration, the future of the female children and affect of the decree of dissolution of marriage, granted an alternative relief of judicial separation exercising power under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955. Unless the Court records a finding that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty such order of granting decree of judicial separation is unsustainable under law and it is against the purport of Section 13-A of the Act of 1955.
18. I n R. Balasubramanian Vs. Smt. Vijayalakshmi
[1]
Balasubramanian , the Apex Court though did not lay any law, but
reversed the decree of judicial separation passed by the trial Court on similar facts. Aggrieved thereby, the husband preferred an Appeal to t h e Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court confirmed the judgment passed by the High Court holding that the husband therein failed to prove either cruelty or desertion, which he attributed to the respondent.
19. In the facts of the decision cited supra, a petition was filed on the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage by the husband. The trial Court instead of passing a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955, passed an order of judicial separation exercising power under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was carried in Appeal by the wife, wherein the High Court considering the pleadings and evidence on record allowed the Appeal holding that the case of cruelty and desertion set up by the husband had not been proved. Aggrieved by which, the husband approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court setting-aside the order of judicial separation on the ground that the trial Court did not record any finding regarding ‘cruelty’ which is a ground to grant decree of judicial separation exercising power under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955. Hence, decision cited supra can be applied to the present case, without any hesitation, and on the strength of the same, the order under challenge is liable to be set- aside.
20. Though the trial Court did not record any finding under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act of 1955, the petitioner did not prefer any separate Appeal or Cross-objections questioning the order and decreetal order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, we ourselves refrained to reverse the finding recorded by the trial Court, in view of the limited scope of the Appeal. As the trial Court did not record any finding under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, which attained finality, but granted a decree of judicial separation on the ground that the marriage is irretrievably broken down, which is not at all a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, or for grant of decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act of 1955. Therefore, the order under challenge, passed by the trial Court, granting decree of judicial separation, is an error apparent on the face of the record, and it is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the point is decided in favour of the wife (appellant) and against the respondent (husband) holding that the petitioner failed to prove the acts attributed to the respondent (wife) which amount to cruelty and such acts caused reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or endangerous for the petitioner to live with the respondent In the result, the Family Court Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 13.07.2001, passed in Original Petition No.4 of 1997 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad.
In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 10-10-2014.
Dsh M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 20 FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.23 OF 2005 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy) Date. 10-10-2014
DSH
[1] AIR 1999 SC 3070