A.Mritunjay vs M.Rama Mani

B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J

This appeal is filed by the appellant-husband aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, dated 28.04.2017 in F.C.O.P.No.239 of 2015.

Appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

3.1. The appellant has filed FCOP.No.239 of 2015 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act, 1955’) against the respondent-wife to grant decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage performed on 09.02.2014 on the ground of cruelty.

3.2. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent is performed on 09.02.2014 at Community Hall, WRS, Raipur (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of caste elders, their parents, relatives and the near and dear and they stayed for about three months. Thereafter, the respondent started neglecting him, changed her attitude and harassed him. Respondent is of unaccomodative, quarrelsome and dominating in nature and used to quarrel with the appellant on trivial issues, abused him in vulgar and filthy language which caused mental torture. Respondent never used to attend the household work. Appellant used to cooperate with the respondent and used to do whatever she directs with a hope that his wife will become normal. Respondent under the influence of her mother and elder sister who appealed for divorce with her husband, used to create mental torture. Appellant vexed with the attitude of the respondent informed the elders of the respondent and finally his wife started leaving the house for few days without informing him and used to join the appellant as per her convenience which went on for few months. Respondent never permitted the appellant to utilize his conjugal rights (i.e., sex etc.,) and did not permit him to sleep in the common room. Respondent is a Government Employee drawing an amount of Rs.45,000/- approximately, she never used to contribute the same to support him financially and prayed to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and denied rest of the allegations. On 15.10.2014, appellant’s parents informed the respondent to go to her parent’s house at Raipur, as their daughter, son-in-law and their son who is studying 11th class are coming to Secunderabad for Diwali celebrations. Respondent did not get leave so she stayed at Uppal home only. Appellant did not inform the respondent about the Court case. The conjugal relationship between the parties were fine up to 09.01.2015 and she never left the appellant’s home before the above said date. On 09.01.2015, her mother came to her Flat No.202, at Road No.14, Surya Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad at about 6.30 A.M. and then she left home for IRISET, Secunderabad at about 8.15 A.M. At about 10.30 A.M., the appellant informed the respondent’s mother that he has to go to Hospital regarding some post operation problem of his father’s eye surgery so that he will drop the respondent’s mother at the respondent’s cousin brother’s home which is nearer to Gandhi Hospital. At about 7.00 P.M., appellant gave message to the respondent on her mobile CUG No.9701370845 that “My father developed a post operation infection and rise in BP so he is admitted and under observation”. For the first time on 27.08.2014, respondent stayed at her cousin brother’s house with her mother which is nearer to Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad, Secunderabad. On 20.02.2015, respondent received a Court Notice in her office at about 3.30 P.M. and prayed to dismiss the O.P. for divorce and allow the counter claim for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1956.

No Court fee is paid on the counter claim and there is no pleading to that effect. The learned Trial Court has taken up the O.P. for Divorce.

Appellant is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Respondent is examined as RW.1, no documents are marked on her side.

The Trial Court after going through the evidence led by the parties and perusing the documents on record, came to a conclusion that the appellant has not made out any case for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the same.

Notice to the respondent is served but she failed to make her appearance.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court went wrong in not considering the fact that the appellant did not live happily with the respondent even for three months and also failed to note that the parties are living separately since 2014 and that the respondent has made the appellant’s life miserable. The Trial Court went wrong in not considering that the respondent wanted the appellant to leave his parents and other family members to get separated from them so that she can live independently, in that event it would become more torturous for the appellant to stay with the respondent-wife. In support of his contentions, relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Smt.Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni 2023 INSC 814, (2) D.Narsimha @ Narsimlu Vs. Smt. D.Anita @ Vaishnavi CMA No.68 of 2022, dated 21.06.2024 of The High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record.

Now the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order suffers from any perversity, illegality and if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

There is no dispute with regard to Ex.P1 (Wedding Card), Ex.P2 (Driving license of the appellant), Ex.P3 (Pan Card of the appellant). Ex.P4 is the Medical Certificates (two in number), one in the name of Lakshmi Kumari, aged about 60 years that she is suffering with “Malignant Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypothyroidism”. She needs every month medical checkup and Lab investigations to adjust the medications. Second Medical Certificate is of the appellant that he is suffering with Hypertension for past 6 months i.e., May, 2014 and is under medication, he needs regular follow up and checkup.

The evidence of the appellant is the replica of the petition averments. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not mentioned the specific words of dominating (harassment nature), vulgar and filthy language used by the respondent and did not file any document to show that the respondent’s elder sister filed divorce petition against her husband, so also he has not mentioned about the words of mental torture in the petition or in the chief affidavit and has not mentioned the type of monitory loss he has sustained. Before filing the petition for divorce, he has not issued notice to the respondent.

The evidence of the respondent is the replica of her counter. In her cross-examination, she stated that she do not know that her brother-in-law filed divorce OP against her sister and that after 6 months, she was transferred to South Central Zone, Secunderabad from South East Zone and her father died due to Heart attack. RW.1 denied the suggestion that she used to beat her mother-in-law with cell phone. Except putting suggestions to the respondent, no incriminating material is elicited from the cross-examination of the witness, so also no suggestion is put to the witness that she abused the appellant in filthy language due to which he suffered cruelty in her hands.

15.1. In Smt. Roopa Soni1, the Supreme Court held that “For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce”.

15.2. In D.Narsimha2, it is observed that “the respondent-wife has admitted that the parties lived together as husband and wife only for 3 months and that she is living apart from the appellant for 7 years immediately preceding the date of the cross-examination which was on 16.03.2021”. The above two decisions do not assist the case of the appellant in view of the fact that the facts in the present Appeal did not match with the cases cited.

The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 set out illustrative cases where inference of ‘mental cruelty’ can be drawn:

(x) “The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty”.

Except the testimony of the appellant, no other evidence is placed by him to show that he underwent cruelty in the hands of his wife. The appellant failed to examine his parents or any other witness to substantiate his contention that it is the respondent who is at fault and that she abused him in filthy language and was in a dominating nature. In the absence of any evidence from the appellant side, it cannot be said that he underwent cruelty in the hands of his wife. As stated supra in Samar Ghosh case3, marital life should be reviewed as a whole and few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.

Appellant failed to prove his case and also failed to lead any evidence in support of his contention, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in detail and rightly held that the appellant has not proved the case and dismissed the O.P.

We are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the FCOP by assigning sufficient reasons and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

FCA No.217 of 2017 is dismissed.

Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.