Dismissed

Mr.Korukonda Battar Darma Kumar v. Smt.Korukonda Battar Ranga Nayakamma

Telangana HC5 Mar 2012CMA/3681/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an order dismissing a petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty, the High Court confirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the appellant failed to prove cruelty by the respondent, as she was ready to live with him and his failure to seek restitution made the appeal meritless.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Court below is confirmed.

Mr.Korukonda Battar Darma Kumar Vs Smt.Korukonda… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPARAO

¶2

C.M.A. NO. 3681 OF 2003

¶3

Between:

¶4

Korukonda Battar Darma Kumar S/o Ramanuja Battar

¶5

………….Appellant AND

¶6

Korukonda Battar Ranga Nayakamma W/o Darma Kumar

¶7

………….Respondent

¶8

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.S. APPARAO)

¶9

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner-husband aggrieved by the Order and Judgement dated 7.7.2003 passed in O.P.No. 19 of 2002 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

¶10

The petitioner filed O.P.No. 19 of 2002 against the wife under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The trial Court after due enquiry dismissed the said petition observing that the petitioner failed to establish the cruelty of the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

¶11

For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in OP are similarly arrayed in the present appeal also.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of arguments while placing reliance on the appeal grounds urged that the Court below ought to have seen that the cruelty in a given case should be decided with reference to the temperament, emotions of the parties, and also social status of the parties, and especially in this case, for the conduct of

¶13

the respondent taking into totality of circumstances, the appellant suffered psychological injury and as such entitled to a decree of divorce.

¶14

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed by the Court below is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶15

The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 7.7.2003 is sustainable and the petitioner is able to establish the ground of cruelty in seeking divorce.

¶16

Before going into the merits of the case, it is just and necessary to refer the factual matrix of the case as under:

¶17

The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was celebrated at Palakurthy in the year 1985 as per the customs rites and their marriage was also consummated. The respondent being only daughter to her parents she never treated the petitioner as her husband at all and she used to humiliate the petitioner on several occasions before the

¶18

family members of the petitioner and relatives. The respondent also used to stay at her parents house and the petitioner used to go to the respondent now and then at Janaladinna for conjugal association. It is stated that most of the time, the respondent spent her time at her parent’s house. As she has fully influenced by her mother she has not cooperated with the petitioner to lead happy conjugal life and also to look after him properly by providing food. Further, she used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner on petty grounds without any reasonable cause. The respondent left the house of the petitioner in the years 1987 to 1989 and went to her parent’s house without consent, knowledge and intimation to the petitioner and she again left the house in the year 2000. By then, the mother of the petitioner was struggling for her life on the deathbed. She never attended to any service to the mother of the petitioner when she was suffering from ailment. Hence, got issued legal notice dated 5.6.2002 asking her to join him and for that respondent got issued reply dated 25.6.2002 with false allegations. Finally, the

¶19

respondent left the house in the month of March 2000 and she did not join him again.

¶20

The respondent denying the allegations made in the petition filed counter affidavit alleging that the petitioner and respondent happily led their marital life till the end of February 2002. Thereafter, remarkable change was taken place in the attitude of the petitioner and he started ill-treating the respondent. Then she reported the matter to the elders. In fact, the petitioner and respondent lived together till May 2002. The respondent did not leave the house of the petitioner in the year 1987 to 1989 and also in the year 2000. The respondent was always in the house of the petitioner and she left the matrimonial house in order to take care of her old mother who is aged 80 years that was in the month of May, 2002 that too with the consent of the petitioner only. The petitioner twisted all the facts and filed the application with all false allegations and the petitioner used to abuse her that she is a barren woman and intended to marry again.

¶21

To prove the respective contentions, on behalf of

¶22

the petitioner he himself was examined as PW-1 and examined PWs 2 and 3 and got marked Ex A1 and on behalf of the respondent, respondent herself was examined as RW-1 and examined RW-2 and got marked Ex. B1.

¶23

PW-1 has admitted in his deposition that he used to look after the agricultural operations in the lands owned by his mother-in-law. RW-1 in her affidavit stated that she led happy marital life with her husband for about 16 years and she did not procure children and she suffered abortions for 4 times and therefore, they adopted a child by name Narmada and agricultural lands owned by her mother were leased out and that she and her husband enjoyed the yield on those lands and that her mother is aged about 80 years and there was none to look after her mother, as such she went to the house of her mother in the month of May, 2002. Once her mother fell down accidentally and suffered fracture and she was hospitalised and therefore, she used to attend her mother in the hospital and also she stayed in the house of her mother. She further stated

¶24

that she has given reply to the legal notice issued by her husband stating that she is ready and willing to join him and in fact she went to the house of the husband but he refused to receive her back.

¶25

Now let us see the evidence of RW-1 how the conduct of the respondent made petitioner miserable and how it amounts to cruelty. When he allowed his wife for adoption and also keeping the alleged girl from the date of 20 days can itself without any hesitation show that the respondent is also equally affectionate towards that girl. If really the evidence of PW-1 is true that her wife is habituated to visit her parent’s house, the question of adoption does not arise. Therefore, it is a good ground in favour of the wife that she is very much affectionate and close to her husband PW-1. The trial Court discussed the evidence of RW-1 and came to the conclusion that there is no cruelty or harassment of respondent towards the petitioner. Even according to his evidence, in chief examination he himself stated that he got issued legal notice to the respondent for which she got issued reply wherein she

¶26

clearly asserted that she is ready and willing to join her husband and lead marital life. Without making any effort for restitution of conjugal life, the petitioner filed the present petition for divorce. PW-3, who examined on behalf of the petitioner and in his evidence nothing was elicited in support of the case of the petitioner as the petitioner himself has miserably failed to prove the allegation of alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent. Therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶27

In the result the appeal fails and the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Court below in O.P.No. 19 of 2002 is confirmed and it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for any divorce.

¶28

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶29

K.S. APPARAO, J DATE: 05.03.2012 KA

... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1. 2 CD copies.

Mr.Korukonda Battar Darma Kumar v. Smt.Korukonda Battar Ranga Nayakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Korukonda Battar Darma Kumar v. Smt.Korukonda Battar Ranga Nayakamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Potla Rajendra Karmarkar Vs Smt.Kameedi (Potla) MEenakshi

Vishal Bohra Vs Smt. Jyoti Bohra

Vishal Bohra Vs Smt.Jyoti Bohra

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Vs M/s Indian Drugs and pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Nallu Harinath Vs Muppala Narayana Reddy

Smt. C.Naga Lakshmi Vs Sri M.v.Subramanyam