Dismissed

Mr.Madhu Kumar My v. Smt.Hima Bindu

Telangana HC10 Jun 2013CMA/3526/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matrimonial appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal against the Family Court order dismissing his divorce petition on cruelty. The Court held that the evidence failed to prove cruelty and noted the wife's willingness to sustain the marriage. Maintenance was directed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant not entitled for decree of divorce; directed to pay monthly maintenance to respondent.

Mr.Madhu Kumar My Vs Smt.Hima Bindu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

CM.A.No.3526 of 2003

¶4

JUDGMENT:

¶5

The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 09-02-2000 and they were also blessed with a child. Appellant filed O.P.No.65 of 2002 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, for divorce against the respondent, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). He pleaded that the respondent used to go to the house of her parents frequently and when the same was objected to by him, she picked up quarrels and informed of the same to her parents. It was also alleged that the parents of the respondent used to pick up quarrels with the appellant and his family and on certain occasions, she came with number of people to threaten them.

¶6

The appellant further alleged that the respondent used to insist on setting up of separate family and on certain occasions, she threatened to commit suicide also. Reference was also made to the complaint submitted by the respondent against the appellant and his parents and making of anonymous calls to the sister of the appellant, abusing her. According to the appellant, these and other acts and omissions on the part of the respondent amounted to cruelty.

¶7

The respondent opposed the OP by denying all the allegations alleged against her. It was stated that at the time of their marriage, her father presented a Maruti Van to the appellant, apart from giving gold ornaments, silver articles, etc. She stated that she never insisted on

¶8

setting up of separate family, nor did she make an attempt to commit suicide. She denied the allegation that she made a complaint to the Police Station, Lal Bazar. It was alleged that the mother of the appellant is an employee in Government service and it was the respondent alone, who used to do the household work. Respondent alleged that the OP was filed at the instigation of the mother of the appellant.

¶9

The trial Court dismissed the OP, through order dated 22-08-2003. Hence, this appeal.

¶10

Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that ever since the marriage, the respondent used to visit the house of the parents frequently and requested the appellant to set up a separate family. He submits that the parents of the respondent not only instigated her to create problems in the family, but themselves have acted in a very objectionable manner by bringing outsiders for administering, etc. He submits that the respondent used to threaten to commit suicide and has made life of the appellant miserable. According to him, a cause for divorce is made out.

¶11

Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that none of the allegations made in the OP have been proved and it is the appellant who neglected to maintain the respondent and their son. He submits that the appellant and his family did not even permit the respondent to enter their house and that she has been subjected to humiliation and harassment.

¶12

The trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., whether the appellant established that the respondent treated him

¶13

cruelly and if so, whether the appellant is entitled for dissolution of the marriage.

¶14

The appellant deposed as PW-1 and his mother was examined as PW-2. The appellant filed Exs.P-1 to P-11. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were filed.

¶15

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence before it, the trial Court dismissed the O.P.

¶16

In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant has made out a case for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

¶17

The marriage in the Indian context is an event, which brings about an emotional unity between man and woman, which is expected to remain till the full length of the spouses. Unlike in certain other systems, it is not at all a contract. Even while attaching solemnity and sacredness to the institution of marriage, law recognizes certain grounds, which, if proved, can bring about termination. Naturally an event which puts an end to a relation, which is otherwise expected to remain for the rest of the life of the spouses, must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶18

The only ground pleaded by the appellant is the one of cruelty. Though at the first blush, one may gain impression that proof of instances resulting injuries or the like, by one spouse against the other is necessary to prove cruelty, the requirement in law is substantially different. Cruelty contemplated under this ground is towards the mind

¶19

and mental condition of the spouse.

¶20

If on account of acts and omissions of one spouse, the latter finds it impossible or difficult to lead the marital life, the latter is entitled to seek divorce by pleading the relevant facts. However, a simple dislike to the other spouse or occasional disagreements on any issues or exhibition of individuality by one spouse, not to the liking of the other cannot constitute cruelty. One spouse to the marriage cannot dictate his/her likes and whims upon the other. It is only when there is mutual adjustment and understanding between the parties, that the marriage would become successful.

¶21

In the instant case, the allegation made by the appellant against the respondent is not about any specific instance, but about general conduct. Even if what is stated by the appellant

¶22

in his pleadings or evidence is taken as true, one finds it difficult to take the cumulative effect thereof, as constituting cruelty. The frequent visit of the respondent to the house of her parents, or the parents of the respondent coming to the house of the appellant cannot be treated as objectionable. The allegation that the parents of the respondent created ugly scene in the house of the appellant was not at all proved. No independent witness was examined. The only other witness examined by him is his mother. The respondent categorically stated that PW-2 used to be the cause of trouble in the matrimonial relation between the appellant and the respondent. The documentary evidence is hardly of any help.

¶23

The respondent, on the other hand, examined six witnesses. Important among them is RW-5, who stated that when talks among the family members were going on, as regards the differences between the

¶24

parties herein, who poke that at a meeting held to resolve the disputes between the parties herein, the father of the appellant admitted that the fault was with the appellant and undertook that no further harassment would be caused to the respondent and that the parents of the appellant would treat the respondent properly. Another witness, RW-1 stated that appellant never complained against the respondent.

¶25

The trial Court discussed the matter at length, with reference to the relevant precedents and recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove the facts pleaded by him. Before this Court also, the appellant is not able to demonstrate that there were any acts of cruelty on the part of the respondent. When effort was made by this Court to bring about reconciliation, it is the appellant, who flatly refused to live with the respondent, whereas the latter expressed her willingness and anguish to sustain the matrimonial home. We find that the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce.

¶26

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

The respondent is now living at the house of her parents together with the male child. It is stated that the child is suffering chronic illness from the childhood and considerable amount is needed for purchase of medicines. We direct that the appellant shall be under obligation to pay maintenance to the respondent

¶28

at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only), per month, from July, 2013 onwards.

¶29

The miscellaneous petitions filed in the appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶31

_______________________ S.V. BHATT, J Dt.10-06-2013 KO

Mr.Madhu Kumar My v. Smt.Hima Bindu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Madhu Kumar My v. Smt.Hima Bindu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rajeswar.Secbad. Vs Smt.G.Laxmi Narasa.Secbad.

M/s. Sai Motors, a firm situated at Hyderabad Road, beside Vs Katapalli Raja Reddy

Dr. Swarna Mandava Vs M/s. Vishnu Housing (P) Ltd.

Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam Ltd., Vs M/s. P.L.Raju Constructions Ltd.

In Re.. Vs Sri B.Gautam Prasad

P.Badrinath Vs Patibandla Kameswari