M. Anuradha v. Makkina Srinivasa Rao

Judgment

per the Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:-

#1. Heard Sri Rama Rao Kochiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

#2. This appeal was filed by the wife challenging the decree of divorce dated 08.05.2006, in H.M.O.P.No.225 of 2001 (HMOP), passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (the Trial court) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (H.M.Act). I. FACTS:

#3. The respondent-husband filed the H.M.O.P pleading inter alia that the appellant is his legally wedded wife. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites, caste and custom on 13.08.1994 at Bapatla in Arts and Science College Premises. He was working as Lecturer in Viswam Coaching Centre, Thirupati. The wife had completed 4 graduation and was staying with her parents. The marriage was without any dowry. Three days after the marriage, the wife told that the marriage was against her wish and will. She started behaving abnormally. After few days of marriage on the pretext to attend duty she went back to Tirupati. For short spells she stayed in the matrimonial home, but her behaviour caused frustration and mental agony to the husband. There was no cohabitation between them. The wife did not attend even the normal works as wife. The husband further narrated many incidents to point out his mental agony and the cruelty by the wife. The mediations, held by the elders failed, as she demanded huge amount of money. Consequently, he had no option but to take divorce for which H.M.O.P was filed.

#4. The wife filed counter and contested the HMOP. She denied the averments of cruelty and any behaviour amounting to cruelty. She pleaded taking dowry by the husband and its more demand on number of occasions. She denied that the marriage was not consummated. She 5 submitted that they were leading matrimonial life as wife and husband. She was discharging her duties as house wife, besides doing job. She pleaded harassment and ill- treatment by the husband. She admitted that the mediations, took place and she also sent a letter/notice dated

01.01.2001, calling upon the husband to allow her to join to lead matrimonial life, which was replied by notice dated

02.03.2001 with false averments. She pleaded that the name of one Bobba Venkata Ramana was introduced with intention to assassinate her character and to make out a case of cruelty towards the husband. She submitted that she was always willing and ready to lead the matrimonial life and prayed for dismissal of the HMOP.

In support of their respective pleadings, the parties led evidences. The husband examined himself as P.W.1. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on his behalf. The wife examined herself as R.W.1 and two other witnesses as R.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on her behalf. 6 II.

#6. JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT:- The learned Trial Court framed the following points for determination: (i) “Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for? (ii) If so, what?”

#7. The learned Trial Court recorded that the relationship between the parties was beyond melting point which could not be got down by any means. The husband levelled allegations of wife‟s relationship with one B. Venkata Ramana, but failed to prove. So, even if the court directed the parties to live together and lead matrimonial life that would cause embarrassment to the parties. In view of the filing of the criminal case under Section 498-A IPC by the wife against the husband and his parents, in which there was arrest, and remand to the judicial custody and they had to obtain bail, there was no chance for the parties to live together happily. The acquittal of the husband and his parents as the prosecution failed to prove the charges, 7 amounted to mental cruelty. Thus, considered the learned Trial court granted divorce and allowed HMOP. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:-

#8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decree of divorce cannot be sustained. The grounds on the divorce petition was filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of H.M Act, i.e cruelty and desertion, were not proved and so, the decree of divorce could not be legally granted. He submitted that the sole ground on which the decree of divorce has been passed is that, the wife filed C.C.No.228 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC but failed to prove the charges. There was acquittal. He submitted that because of acquittal it could not be that filing of criminal case, amounted to mental cruelty, to afford a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M Act, 1955.

#9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the following cases: 8 S.C Nuna vs. Anita Nuna1 G Vamsi Mohan vs. G Aparna2 Kamana Venkata Suresh Kumar vs. Kamana

#3. Anusha3 IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:-

#10. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the decree of divorce. He submitted that the cruelty was established. It cannot be said that there was no ground to grant the divorce. He submitted that on the false allegations filing of criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, implicating husband and his parents, which resulted in acquittal amounted to cruelty on which the divorce was rightly granted by the learned Trial Court.

#11. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following cases: 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1607 2 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4883 3 2023 SC OnLine AP 1251 9

#1. Usharani Lenka vs. Panigrahi Subhash Chandra Dash alia Sahoo4.

#2. Narendra Kumar Gupta vs Indu5. Dr. P.K. Tomar vs. Smt Archan6

#3. 4. Gajjala Shankar v. Anuradha7

#7. Dr.N.G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane8 Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli9 Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani10 Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey11 8. 9. Madhukar D. Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage12 10. K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita13 V. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

#12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

#13. The point which arises for our consideration and determination is formulated as under:- A. Whether filing of C.C.No.229 of 2003 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry