The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court decree granting his wife maintenance. The court held that cruelty justified separate residence without forfeiting the right to maintenance and refused to alter the awarded quantum.
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions stood dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE S1 AT HYDEJiJSDOFTELAN GANA
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
APPEAL SUIT NO: 2194 OF 2003
Appeal under Order 19 of the Family Court Act, Rl/w. under Order XXXXI Rule 1 R/w. 96 of CPC,against thejudgment and decree dated 26-4-2003 in O.S.No.86/2001, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad.
Between:
K.Sreenivas, S/o.late K.Shankar Rao
...APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT
AND
Smt. K.Renuka Bai, W/o.K.Sreenivas
...RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF
For the Appellant : SRl. S.CHANDRASEKHAR,Advocate
For the Respondent : SRIT.MOHAN RAO, Advocate
The Court deliveredthe following:JUDGNIENT
HON'BLE SRIJUSTICEM.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HON,BLE SRI JUSTICET ATH GOUD
A.S.No.2194 0F 2003
JUDGMENT:lPer llctn'ble sn Jlis-lice l Aion&thCaud)
1 This Appeal,under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act' 1984 and underOrder XXXX Rule 1 r/w Section96 of CPC' is directedagainstthe judgmentand decree dated 26'4'2003' passed by the learnedJudge, Famiiy Court, Secunderabad' in O.S.No.86 of 2001,wherein and whereby the leanedJudge partly decreed the suitfiled by the respondentherern directing the appellant topay an amount of Rs.750/- p m to the respondent towardsher maintenance'
2 The lacts that 1ed to the liling of thepresentappeal, succrnctly, are as follovn's:
3 The respondent filed the above referred suit stating that her marriage with the appellant was performed as per caste custom and Hindu rites on 30.12.1996. After a short period of the marriage, the appellant started harassing her saying that he was not willing to marry her and only on account of compulsion from his parents, he agreed to marry her. The complaint of the respondent was that the mother of the appellant also tortured her and used her to scold her in filthv language. The appellant u,as incapable of taking any decision indepeqdently because he was under the control of his mother. The respondent was unable to maintain herself and
2
hence she filed the suit claiming maintenance ol Rs.5,000/_ per month from the appellant apart from Rs.20,000/_ towards legal expenses.
4 The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the marriage between him and the respondent \vas not consummated. That the respondent had no interest to marry him, and that she lntended to marry some other person, and with that intention she never cooperated with the appellant for consummation of their marriage. She used to quarrel with the appellant on one pretext or the other. The respondent used to reside at her parents' house for months together. The respondent demanded him to reside at Hyderabad to which he disagreed as his parents were sick. As the respondent is not cooperating for the marital life, he filed a divorce petition on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad district on the ground of desertion and cruelty and after receiving summons in that case, the respondent and her parents started to take revenge against him. The respondent foisted a false case against him and made him to be put under lockup for 2 to 3 days. In that case, at the intervention and duress of the police, an agreement was executed on 20.9.2000 he paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent towards marriage expenses and fu1l satisfaction towards her maintenance.
3
Accordingto the said agreement' the respondentshal1not initiate furtherproceedings and shall accept for mutual divorce.Sometime thereafter,concealingthe abovereferred agreement, therespondent again filed a criminalcase before the Court of XXII MMCourt, Nampaliy The respondentand her parents also went topolice officials and finally on 09.8.200 1, it was settled for Rs.1,20,000/-including the already paid amount of Rs.50,000 /-plus some articles. Before the police the appellant paid anamountof Rs.50,O0O/- and agreed to pay the balanceamountand articles. However, according to the said settlement,the respondent has to withdrarv the present suit andgive divorce to the appellant, but she did not. At the instance of the respondent the Criminal Court at Nampally transferred the case to the court below where it was numbered as O.S.No.86 of 2001. The respondent is earning Rs.100/- per day by doing tailoring work. Hence the appellant prayed to dismiss the suit.
5 Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
l. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for maintenance? If so, for how much amount?
ii. To what relieL2
6 Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both sides. During the course of recording of evidence,
4
respective parties examined themselves as p.W. I and D,W. 1. On defendant,s side one K. Vittal Rao was examined as D'w '2' However, no documentary evidence was ret in on behalf of the respondent, but on behalf of the appellant Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.
7 On appreciation of both oral and documentaqz evidence and also the material available on record, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the appellant and accordingly decreed the suit partly as stated supra. Hence the present appeal by the husband.
8 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent filed the suit concealing the agreements dated 20.9.2OOO and 09.8.200 1 and also receipt of amounts from the appellant under the said agreements.
9 As seen from the record and the evidence let in on behalf of both parties, there is no dispute with regard to the status of the parties to this appeal as husband and wife respectively since neither of them denied the factum of 1S marriage. It is an admitted fact that the respondent maternal uncle's daughter of the appellant.
1 0 In the chief examination affidavit of the respondent being P.W. 1 , she stated that her parents performed her marriage with the appellant by spending huge amounts and
5
that for thatpurposeher parents sold part of their house in the year 1998to fulfiil the unlawfuldemandsof the appellant' More over herparentpresented gold and other valuable items to the appellant.Her in-laws ah't'aysused to ill-treat her' In the months of Marchand April 1997 when the respondentfe11 i11, instead of providingmedicalassistance toher,the appellant and his parentsdropped her at her parents'house and did not turn up. Thereafter in the monthof October, her father took her to the house of the appellant and droppedher by fulfilling all the formalities according to the wishes of her in-1aws. Again on the day of Ugadi festival, 1998 when the respondent was performing pooja, her mother-in-1anv abused her in filthy ianguage and assaulted her physically stating that unless she bring Rs.20,000/ - from her parents' house they will not allow her to stay in the matrimonial house. The parents of the respondent tried to amicably settle the matter but in vain. Hence, being unable to bear with the harassment meted out by her in-1au,s and husband, the respondent was forced to stay at her parents'house as there was threat to her lile in the house of her in-laws. She is an uneducated and to unemployed married woman. The appellant neglected maintain her. The appellant is having sufficient sources of incomes and hence she is entitled to claim maintenance from the appellant as she is unable to maintain herself.
6
11 In the cross examination the respondent stated thar according to her the appellant is earning Rs.5,000/_ to Rs.6,000/- per month by doing scooter mechanic work. She denied the suggestion that she is doing tailoring work and earns some amount. On 20.9.2OO0 (Ex.B.1) the police drafted an agreement in the police station and she signed on it at the instance of police. She received Rs.5O,00O/_ and executed a receipt (Ex.B.2). According to her, Ex.B.1 was executed for cancellation of crtminal case only and for return of articles. She denied the suggestion rhat she agreed for divorce and forfeiture of maintenance. She admitted that under the second agreement dated 09.8.200 1 (Ex.B.3) she received further amount of Rs.50,OO0 I - and signed on it.
t2 The appellant filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the stand taken in hrs u,ritten statement. In the cross-examination, the appellant admitted that the gold and household articles of the respondent were with him and that he did not return them. In the re-examination, the appellant had categorically admitted that he was having capacity to maintain his wife even by taking a separate house.
13 D.W.2 who is the paternal uncle of the appellant filed his chief examination affidavit sailing along with the appellant. As seen from his evidence he was a witness to the
7
marriage betweenthe appeilant and the respondentand also to the matrimonialdisputes between the spouses'
14 The case of bothappellant and respondent is oath against oath. On one side therespondentstates the appellant and his mother subjectedher to cruelty and finally the appellant neglected her. On the otherside the appellant states that the respondent herself deserted him withoutany justifiable cause. However, in the backdrop of the evidence iet in, it seems, none of them is willing to continue the matrimonial life and the marital bond between them has irretrievably broken. The question that arises for '.consideration in the case on hand is who neglected whom. According to the respondent there was no consummation of the marriage as the mother of the appellant used to sleep between them. Moreover, in the cross examination the appeilant admitted that he never touched his wife, the respondent. The respondent stated that on so many occasions, her mother-in-law beat her physically. In such circumstances the respondent is justified ln staying away from her husband.
15 Much was said by both parties with regard to Exs.B.1 to B.3. But they have no 1egal sanctity because, as rightly observed by the Court below, all those documents were executed in police station. The police have nothing to do in
8
=
conjuga.l matters. Moreover, no person cited as witness to those documents was examined before the Court.
16 Section 18 (2) (b) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as uncler:
Maintenance of wife. - (1) x x x x x x
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to ,n.i.rt".,.rrce_j---
lglxxxxxx
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;
17 In the case on hand, the allegation of the respondent is that there is every threat to her life in the matrimonial home and even though she performed all her domestic obligations towards her husband and in-laws, they always used to beat her, insult her and degrade her. It is her further allegation that the appellant used to treat her as a slave, bonded labour and caused undue hardship by passing sarcastic remarks. Of course, the appellant tried tojustify his case by saying that he tried to bring back the respondent to thematrimoniai home through some mediations. But thereisno corroboration on that aspect.The stand of the appellant is that the respondent and herparentsdemandedthe appellant to come down to Hyderabadand stay at their houseas illatum son-in-law. ThoughD.W.2,to someextent, supported the version of the appellant,since he is closelyrelatedto the appellant being hispaternal unc1e,much credence cannotbe
9
attachedto his evidence'To substantiatehis case the appellanthas not examinedany independentwitness before the Court.
18 From theevidence of the respondent, itcan be presumed that there wasreasonable apprehensionin the mind of the respondent that itwiil be harmful or injuriousto live with the appellant. Therefore,certainly,the respondent shall be entitled to live separatelyfrom her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance.
19 There is no documentaryproof with regard to the income and financial status of the appellant.The respondent herself stated in her cross examination that the appellantis earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month by doing scooter mechanic work.
20 In the light of the above legal principle, and in view of the evidence available on record, we are ol the considered view that the appellant has neglected the respondent and failed to pay maintenance to her. The trial Court, though the respondent claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m., taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, granted an amount of Rs.750/- p.m. towards her -maintenance. Since this appeal is filed by the husband - appellant, we do not wish to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court.
10
21 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for its findings and accordingly decreed the suit partly, which in our considered view does not warrant any interference at this appellate stage. Hence the appeal is 1iab1e to be dismissed.
22 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.No order asto costs. Miscelianeous petitions if anypendingin this appeal shall also stand dismissed.
sdi-K.SREENIVASARA DEPUTYREGI //TRUECOPY'
SECTI N OFFICER
To
I 3. iH'{{l! OneCC to {fSri $:T Mohan Hfil:iaffit #}lr?[3;g,' "' 4. TwoCD CoPies Kj. s q,
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:0411212O2O
1 tl I 5 r4
(
ot) 15 0tcl020
n
,+
*
J<
Dr..,. f;0
'{
,'
JUDGMENT
AS.No.2194 of 2003
Dismissing the Appeal no order as to costs.
s:v ., 5iPPiE lv-rt+-o',-a
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance when the husband treats her with cruelty causing apprehension of harm?
Whether the wife forfeits her claim to maintenance upon living separately?
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Sreenivas
Smt. K. Renuka Bai
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
T. Amarnath Goud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
