Dismissed

Smt. Laxmi , Meenakshi v. Sri Chetty Mahadevappa

Telangana HC9 Apr 2021CMA/319/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a divorce decree granted under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Upholding the lower court, the Court held that the appellant's admission of an adulterous connection with a second respondent constituted mental cruelty and desertion, rendering the marriage irretrievably broken.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed at the admission stage; no costs.

Smt. Laxmi , Meenakshi Vs Sri Chetty Mahadevappa — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO} AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD^KUMAR

¶8

C.M.A. NO: 319 OF 2020

¶9

Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu lt/arriage Act, 1954, against^{the JudgmenU} decree in HMOP No.3B/2018 dated^{2510212020on the file of the Court of the Senior} Civil Judge, Narayanpet.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Laxmi @ Meenakshi,

¶12

..,APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

Sri Chetty Mahadevappa,

¶15

Sri Wakiti Narayana,

¶16

,..RESPONDENTS

¶17

For the Appellant : SRI K.SUDERSHAN, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondents :

¶19

The Court at the admission stage delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶20

HONOUFABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶22

(

¶23

CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO.3l9 0F 2020

¶24

JUDCMENT:

¶25

(Pet Sri Jwtice M.S.Ranachandru Roo)

¶26

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dt.25.02.2020 in H.M.O.P.No.38 ol 2018 ol the Senior Civil Judge, \atrianpct

¶27

2, -l-he. appe,llant here in was married to the 1'' respondent oll I 1.06.201 I

¶28

The case of the l'r resnonden t/husband

¶29

The l" respondent frled H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2018 alleging that ever since the pa(ies got married, the appellant was harassing and ill-treating him and was also abusing him in frlthy language and defaming him in the presence of other villagers; that she filed a false complaint against him and his parents on 20.09.2015 under Section 4984, read with Section 34 tPC which "vas^{numberedas C.C.No.549ol 2015; and thar the} appellant had desened hirn and was leading adulterous lif-e with the 2,,d respondent.

¶30

The I 'r respondent atleged that the appellant, while residing u,ith the 3"'i resporrd!.nt, !as denranding a big sum ol monev fiom the parents of the l'' respondent; that thereafter since the l" respondent and his parenrs refused to pay it, she filed anorher false complaint on 24.01.2019 ag?inst the 1't respondent and his parents under Section 49gA IpC read

¶31

)

¶32

¶33

with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dor.vry Prohibition Act^(Crime No.5 of 2018).

¶34

It is also alleged by the 1't respondent that the appellant came to the 1't respondent's village on 09.02.2018 and attacked and beat^{up the} mother of the l" respondent causing her internal injuries;^{that she also} lodged another false complaint under Sections^{448,323,504and 506} IPC (Crime No.7 of 2018)

¶35

6, The I't respondent therefore contended that^leading of^adulterous life by the appetlant with the 2nd respondent amounts^{to cruelty to him} and the actions of the appellant^{amounted to defamation,insultand} annoyance and because he lost his^{reputationin the village, he is entitled} to decree for dissolution of the^{marriage on the ground of nrentalcruelty} and desertion as well.

¶36

The stand of the anpellant/rvife

¶37

The appellant hled a^{counter denyingthe allegations leveledby} the l't respondent and^{contended that the I't respondent and his parents} harassed her, because of^{which she filed C.C.No.549of 2015, but the} same was compromised.

¶38

She denied that^{she was in love with the 2nd respondent and} wanted to live with^{the 2ndrespondent by leaving the company olthe l"} respondent. According^{to her, she gave a cornplaint against the2"d} lespondent for sexual^{harassment,but the l" respondent managedthe} police and got it retumed^{as a wrong complaint.}

She denied attacking the parents of the 1r, respondent and contended that the 1't respondent himserf got registered farse police case against her

¶44

According to the appellant, the I't respondent was verv aggressive, angry and wanled to control the appellant in every aspect and did not give her any space or freedom to do anything in the house and prohibited her liom doing anyjob.

¶45

I l. She stated that alier the first year of the nrarriage, her mother_inIarv fbrced her to do all household work without any help apart lrom agriculture work and the I't respondent never bothered to care about the health of the appellant and did not spend any time with her; and after she delivered a female child, her mother-in-law wanted to get rid of her. According to her, her in-laws beat her up during her pregnancy and threw her out of the matrimonial home and she spent fbur 1,ears in her parents' house d,ring which time the l't respondent did not bother to call or reconcile rvith her.

¶46

12, 1'hereafter, on persuasion by her tbther, the l.rrespondent and his tirmill, rnembers agr.eed to take her in the house, but the 1,, respondent was addicted to alcohol, used to abuse and treat her violently and he also never bothered about her daughter.

¶47

13' She admitted thar on Dussara festival 2017, she left the house of the l" respondent along with her daughter and on the next day the lrr respondent and his parents came to her parents' house and assaurted her and forcibly took away the minor daughter. She alleged that in January, ' -^{20 I} 8 when she \ /ent to the l.r respondent,s house to take the minor

¶48

¶49

child, the 1't respondent and his parents beat her and refused to hand ovel the child and then she filed complaint in Crime No.5 of 2018.

¶50

The stand of the 2nd respondent

¶51

The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying knowledge of matrimonial disputes between the appellant and the^{1't respondent.}

¶52

He denied that the appellant intended^{to leadmarital life with him.} According to him, there was enmity between the famiiy^{of the l't} respondent and the family of^{the 2nd respondent and to take revenge} against him and to damage his reputation,^{he was impleadedas a party in} the HMOP.

¶53

16, According to him, he^{was a manied person having three cl.rildlerr} and the l" respondetrt delanted^{hirri by inlpleading hirn in thisO.P}

¶54

The cvcnts in the HNIOP

¶55

In the HMOP, the l't^{respondent examinedP.Ws.l and 2 and} marked Exs.Pl to P8 and^{the appellant examinedR.Ws.1and 2 but did} not file any documents.

¶56

The order of the Court belorv

¶57

By order dt.25.02.2020,^{the Court below allowedH'M'O'P'No'38} of 201 8

¶58

The Court^{below referred to the statement given by the appellant} in Ex.P5, which is^{attestedcopyof the FIR in Crime No'47 of 2017filed} by her against^{the2n'1respondent,and noted that in the said FIR' the} appellant alleged that^{the 2nd respondent committed oflences under}

)

Sections 417 and 420 IPC; that she also alleged that the 2nd respondent had lured her uith delicious words, told herthat he loved her and if she agreed, he would rnarry her, that she had discarded her husband as she is not rvilling to lead marital life with her husband and she canre to the 2,,., respondenr a,d asked him to marry, but the 2"d respondent then ref'used to marry her.

¶63

The Court below therefore rejected the plea of the appellant that she was not living in adultery with the 2nd respondent in view of the contents ofEx.P5 referred to above.

¶64

It also observed that the appellant did not lead any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the rst respondent was avaricious and interested only in money and materialistic gain, that the mother_in_law of the appellant was not happy with the jewellery, house hold items and other items given in the shape of dowry, and would constantly insult the appellant and her. parents.

¶65

)) The Court below also relied on the statement of R.W. l rhat she \,A S voluntarilv r.esiding separately and concludecl thar she \,as not intelested in leading rnarital lifb with the l.'respondenr

¶66

It then concluded that the r't respondent cannot be expected to rive with the appellant since she had ilregal contact with the 2nd respondent, and the evidence on record indicates that the appelant was treating the 1't respondent with mental cruelty, that both parties were living separately since 2015, and the marriage had irretrievablv broken down, and'there was no ,:hance of them living together again.

¶67

¶68

It therefore granted the decree ofdivorce.

¶69

1'h rescn t A cli

¶70

25, Challenging thc san1e, this Appeal is filed by the appellant

¶71

The counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below had erred in dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the I't respondent by granting decree of divorce; that it also erred in coming to the conclusion that they were living separately since 2015 without accepting the appellant's plea that because of the harassment by the I't respondent for dowry, she was residing separately and had given police complaints twice against the l't respondent. He contended that the first complaint given under Section 498A IPC by the appellant against the I't respondent was withdrawn by her on the basis of a compromise entered into between the pa(ies, but since there was fresh harassment for additional dowry, she had to give second complaint against her husband alleging commission of oft-ence under Section 498,{ IPC. IIe also pointed out that the I'' respondent had not filed any corrplaint against the appellant for her illegal connection with the 2nd respondent and the filing ofthe divorce OP by the l" respondent was a counter-blast^against the criminal case, domestic violence case filed by the appellant^against the 1't respondent.

¶72

The consideration bv the Court

¶73

One of the grounds for dissolution of a marriage is^treatrnent of one spouse by the other spouse with cruelty, and such cruelry can^be either rlental cruelty or physical cruelty

¶74

¶75

¶76

The appellant herself^{had givena criminalcomplaint Ex.P5 which} is attested copy of FIR in Crime^{No.47 ol 2017 against the 2nd} respondent srating that she^{was maniedto the l'r respondentandrvas} blessed rvith a f'enrale child,^{but she was} for^pretious four^{veors stq'ing} tlt,u.t' .fiortt her lnt;bantl and^{flom previous one year the} 'nd^respondent hacl lurecl her uith delicious^{words and told her that he loved her and if} she agreed, he will marry^{her; that she discardedher husband as she is} not willing to lead tnarital life^{with her husband and whenshecame to} the 2nd respondent and asked^{him to marry,he refused to marry her. She} thus sought to take legal action against^{the 2nd respondent.}

¶77

The contents of this complaint^{clearlyindicatethat the appellant} had illegal connection with the 2"d^{respondentand had expressedher} intention that she was not willing to^{lead maritallife with the1 't} respondent u'ho is her lawfully^{wedded husband.}

¶78

Merell, bccause the l't respondent^{had not lodged any complaint} against the 2nd respondent for enticing his^{wile, it cannotbe said that the} I't respondent had approved of the illegal contact^{betweenthe appellant} and the 2"d respondent.

¶79

Fidelity in rnarital relationship is^{very iniponantand if one of the} spouses is guilty of infidelity, it would certainly^{amountto causing} mental cruelty to the other spouse.

¶80

Though the appellant alleged that because ofdowry^harassmentby the 1" respondent and his parents, she was forced to staY awa)'^{lrom him,} -_admittedlv^{one complaintC.C.No.549of 2015filed by her against her} husband under Serction 498A IPC came to be comprol-tiised. and^the

¶81

¶82

second complaint in Crime No.5 of 2018 lodged by^{her againsther} husband, has not resulted in any^conviction.

¶83

The evidence of P.W.2, uncle of the I't respondent^{who was} one of the panchayatdars and who tried to mediate between the^parties, corroborates the case of the l" respondent that^{the appellantrefused to} join the company ol the l" respondent in order to lead nlarital lil'e though the first complaint in C.C.No.549 of²⁰¹ 5^hadbecn compromised, and that she had stated^{that shewas in love with the2nd} respondent and intended to contiriue her future life^{with the 2nd} respondent. The conduct of^panchayats several^{times is also corroborated} by Ex.P3 criminal complaint in Crime No.37 of^{2015 filed by the} appellant against the I't respondent and his mother,^{wherein she herself} admitted that there were several^{panchayatstook place in which her} parents and some village elders participated.

¶84

Even R.W.2, the brother of^{the appellant,had adnrittedthat the} appellant was residing with her^{motherfor the previoustwo vcars.}

¶85

In view of this evidence^{on record, we are ofthe opinion that the} Court below did not^{comtnit any error in giving the finding that the} appellant treated the l'r^{respondentwith crueltyby leading adulterous} life with the 2nd respondent,^{and that she had also desertedthe 1't} respondent, that she treated^{him with cruelty, and that the marriage itself} had inetrievably broken^{down and thereis no chance of them living} together again.

¶86

Accordingly,^{we do not find any meritin this Appeal and it is} dismissed at the admission^{stage. No costs.}

Pending rniscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

¶91

slanil tlis nr is sr rl

¶92

Sd/.K.SREENIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' Nr'4

¶93

SECTION OFFICER

¶94

To 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, tvlahabubnagar District 2. One CC to^{Sri K.Sud-ershan,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶95

Two CD CoPies

<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/04/2021

tiE Si4 14:
+
(<o
1.
ii 09iintzozt c)
\ "!+.. + ../
:, /rl
\t_

¶101

JUDGMENT

¶102

CMA.No.319 of 2020

¶103

DISMISSED AT THE ADMISSION STAGE,^{NO COSTS.}

¶104

( tL,
f-
h>l
v

Smt. Laxmi , Meenakshi v. Sri Chetty Mahadevappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi , Meenakshi v. Sri Chetty Mahadevappa

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

Praveen Kumar Pullagurla and 3 Others Vs Akkennaboina Krishna and 19 Others

M/s.Vanaja Electrical Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Quality Technologies Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St). Ida

M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Limited, Vs The State of Telangana

P. Mallikarjuna Rao Vs M/s Sree Sai Kamal Ventures

M/s. Raniya Enterprises Vs The Commercial Tax Officer