Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 181 (AP)

K. Girija @ Rani v. K. Ratnakar

2013-03-12

K.G.SHANKAR, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 01-12-1995 at Mamidipally Village, Armoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. The respondent is employed as a Teacher in Government School. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two sons. 2. The respondent filed O.P. No. 54 of 2000 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad against the petitioner for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He pleaded that ever since their marriage, the appellant has been picking up quarrels with him and his parents without there being any provocation. He alleged that after the appellant went to her parents' house for delivery of the first child, she did not turn up for quite a considerable time and it is only on giving an assurance that they would live separately in a rented house, that she came and joined him. It was his case that on one occasion, the appellant picked up quarrel with him and caused physical injuries. A complaint is said to have been made to the local police station. Another allegation of the respondent was that the appellant abused him and other devotees of Ayyappa, when a Pooja was being performed in his house. The appellant is alleged to have damaged the bicycle of the respondent, when he visited his parents' house and that she suspected illicit relation between the respondent and another woman. With these and other allegations, the respondent prayed for decree for divorce stating that the acts and omissions on the part of the appellant constitute cruelty. 3. The appellant filed a counter in the O.P. Apart from denying the allegations made against her, she stated that the respondent harassed her on several occasions and that her parents and relations had to intervene to convince him. She states that the OP was filed only with a view to get rid of her, and the marriage with false allegations. 4. The trial Court allowed the O.P., through order dated, 27-12-2003. Hence this appeal. 5. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was hardly any evidence on record to establish that the appellant is guilty of acts of cruelty towards the respondent. 4. The trial Court allowed the O.P., through order dated, 27-12-2003. Hence this appeal. 5. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there was hardly any evidence on record to establish that the appellant is guilty of acts of cruelty towards the respondent. He submits that except making some vague and general allegations, the respondent did not prove anything and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is hardly any use. He contends that even if the allegations in the O.P. were to have been taken on their face value, they did not constitute a ground to terminate the marriage. He submits that lack of disharmony is evident from the fact that the couple had two children. He contends that the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 is totally unbelievable and on certain aspects, they stated something more than what the respondent as P.W.1 has stated. 6. Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the conduct of the appellant has been such that hardly there was any harmony between the couple and left with no alternative, his client has filed the O.P. He submits that the trial Court took into account, the consistent versions of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the finding recorded by the trial Court does not warrant interference. He further submits that the conduct of the respondent, subsequent to the disposal of the O.P., be it when she filed a complaint under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code or other cases, would fortify the findings recorded by the trial Court. 7. The only ground pleaded by the respondent for dissolution of marriage between himself and the appellant was one of cruelty. The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely 'whether the appellant herein treated the respondent with cruelty'. On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A-1 and A-2 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 8. Cruelty on the part of a spouse, if proved, constitutes a ground for the other, to seek dissolution of marriage. However, the finding must be based on believable and cogent evidence. Normally, the plea of cruelty in the context of an Indian Marriage is raised by the woman spouse. 8. Cruelty on the part of a spouse, if proved, constitutes a ground for the other, to seek dissolution of marriage. However, the finding must be based on believable and cogent evidence. Normally, the plea of cruelty in the context of an Indian Marriage is raised by the woman spouse. In the instant case, the respondent, who is not only well-educated, but also functioning as a Teacher in a Government School, filed the O.P. pleading that the appellant treated him with cruelty. It is well established that the cruelty in matters of this nature need not be the one that must result in bodily injury. If, by acts and omissions, a person makes the life of his or her spouse miserable for a prolonged period, the ground of cruelty can certainly be taken as proved. 9. In the instant case, even as per the narrative of the respondent, himself and the appellant lived together for quite some time, so much so, within one and half years, they were blessed with a child. Small ramblings in a family, particularly when a girl from one family joins another, cannot be treated as acts of cruelty. Though the respondent made an attempt to establish that there was cruelty on the part of the appellant, it is belied from the very fact that the small difference of opinion, after birth of the first child, stood neutralised with their joining and living together and giving birth to a second child. 10. The respondent pleaded that on one occasion, the appellant attacked him and caused physical injuries. Hardly, there is any evidence in this regard. Except himself, no other witness has supported it. Though a mention was made to a complaint said to have been submitted in the police station, neither a case was registered nor any substantial development has taken place in that. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is totally unbelievable. For instance, P.W.3, who is said to be living opposite to the house of the respondent, stated many things, which did not take place at that location. Added to that, while the allegation of the respondent was that the appellant had damaged his cycle, P.W.3 went to the extent of saying that the appellant had picked up a boulder and has thrown it on the bicycle. 11. Added to that, while the allegation of the respondent was that the appellant had damaged his cycle, P.W.3 went to the extent of saying that the appellant had picked up a boulder and has thrown it on the bicycle. 11. Before it passes a decree for divorce, that too, on the ground of cruelty, the Court must be fully convinced about the allegations and conclusion must be arrived at on the basis of clinching evidence. If one looks at the order passed by the trial Court, hardly any basis found for its conclusion. On the one hand, the trial Court went on examining the pleadings of the appellant herein, who figured as respondent in the O.P., as though the burden to disprove the allegation rested upon her. Added to that, the fact that the parties are living separately from 23-06-1999 was taken as a ground to infer the existence of cruelty. The concluding portion of the order, which lead to the finding, reads as under: "The oral evidence adduced by the petitioner clearly establishes the claim of the petitioner that the respondent treated him with cruelty. The various incidents brought out in the evidence would show that the relationship between the parties is irretrievably broken. Because of the hostile attitude of the respondent, the petitioner was subjected to serious mental agony. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act." 12. We are afraid, such findings can constitute the basis to dissolve the marriage. Howsoever willing the respondent may be to get rid of the appellant for his own reasons, he cannot wish away the sacred institution of marriage at his whims. 13. This Court made an attempt to bring about settlement between the parties. Though the appellant has expressed her readiness to join the matrimonial home, the respondent was reluctant without stating any specific reason. 14. The appeal is therefore allowed with costs and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. 15. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.