Divorce -Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').=HUSBAND FAILED TO DENY THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY WIFE, HE FAILED EXAM ANY ONE FROM HIS Family ; demandeding return of Mangalasutra clearly proves the cruelty of husband, entitling wife for divorce = fact that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C., and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and that the same has been taken up, as Crime No.130 of 2007, on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, supports this.DIVORCE CASE ; did not deny the occurrence of the incident, on 04-04-2007, wherein the respondent was said to have been attacked with beer bottles.- Nothing was suggested to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. Further, the very fact that, except the appellant, no other witness, including anyone from his family, was examined; discloses that he has no defence. In case what is stated by the respondent, as to the occurrences, during her stay in the house of the appellant, was not proved, he could have examined anyone from his family, or the neighbours, in this regard. He did not choose to do so.-There cannot be a better proof of the pleadings of a person in a given case. The most significant aspect of a Hindu Marriage is the tying of 'thalibottu' i.e., 'Mangalasutra'. Even when the relations are strained, it remains on the neck of the woman spouse, as a sacred bond. Any attempt made by the woman spouse to remove it, either out of anger, or without any bad intention; is found fault with. - There cannot be a better instance of cruelty to a woman,in the hands of a spouse, than to be asked to return the Mangalasutra.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9827 DIVISION BENCH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR            

F.C.A.No.118 of 2012

12-04-2013

M. Sukender                          

Smt. S.M. Shirisha

Counsel for the appellant       :  Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddyu

Counsel for the Respondent      :  Sri P. Rana Praveer

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

 The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 13-08-
2006.  Within a short time thereafter, differences have arisen between them.
The respondent filed O.P.No.5 of 2009 before the Additional Family Court,
Hyderabad, seeking divorce against the appellant under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').  She pleaded that prior to
the marriage itself, the appellant and his family members demanded dowry of
Rs.10 lakhs; valuable articles, and marriage expenditure, and that demands have
been complied with.  She further pleaded that after the marriage, the appellant
and his parents demanded additional dowry of Rs.11 lakhs, for purchase of a flat
at Seethaphalmandi.
She has also stated that a two wheeler was purchased by the
appellant, in her name, and the installments were being paid from her hank
account.
She alleged that
on 22-09-2006, when she was travelling on a two wheeler, somebody dashed against
the vehicle, and she received grievous injuries.  She suspected the hand of the
appellant and her family members, to do away with her. 
 Another allegation was
that
on 04-04-2007 a birthday party was celebrated in the house of the appellant, and
on that day, she narrowly escaped, when the appellant and his father have thrown
empty beer bottles on her.
An iron rod is also said to have been thrown from the first floor
on 19-05-2007 by the appellant and his parents.  
It was further stated that the
appellant and his family members have necked her out, stating that she should
come back with additional dowry.  
Narrating these and other instances,
she
prayed for a decree of divorce.

The appellant opposed the O.P., by denying the allegations made against him, and
his family members.  He has also stated that it is the respondent, that has been
creating trouble to the family, and has filed frivolous complaints.  The trial
Court decreed the O.P., through its order dated 22-06-2011.  The appellant
challenges the same.

Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that none
of the allegations made by the respondent were proved, and small incidents, that
occur in any family, have been blown, out of proportion.  He submits that the
respondent caused harassment to the appellant and his family members, and still,
they kept quiet, with a view to continue the matrimony.
Sri Rana Praveer, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits
that the various acts of cruelty and desertion resorted to by the appellant were
proved, by cogent oral and documentary evidence, and that the finding recorded
by the trial Court does not warrant interference.
 He submits that the conduct
of the appellant is evident from the filing of I.A.No.262 of 2011,
in the O.P., with a prayer to direct the respondent to return the Mangalasuthra.

On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one point
for its consideration, viz., whether the respondent is entitled for a decree of
divorce.

On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were
filed.  The appellant deposed as RW-1, and no other evidence was adduced by him.

The respondent pleaded the grounds of cruelty and desertion.  As regards
cruelty, she has narrated various events,
such as demand for additional dowry, physical attack upon her, and mental
harassment causing to her, from time to time.
Apart from deposing as PW-1, she has examined PW-2, the immediate neighbour, who  
has witnessed the various events.
PW-2 stated that the appellant and his family members picked up quarrels with
the respondent for additional dowry and subjected her to physical and mental
agony.  
The fact that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 498-A
I.P.C., and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and that the
same has been taken up, as Crime No.130 of 2007, on the file of the XIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, supports this.  
The
appellant did not deny the occurrence of the incident, on 04-04-2007, wherein the respondent was said to have been attacked with beer bottles.

On the allegation as to desertion, PWs 1 to 3 have categorically stated that the
appellant and his family members have necked out the respondent, from their
house, with a warning that she should come back with additional dowry.
Nothing
was suggested to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2 and 3.
Further, the very fact
that, except the appellant, no other witness, including anyone from his family,
was examined; discloses that he has no defence.  
In case what is stated by the
respondent, as to the occurrences, during her stay in the house of the
appellant, was not proved, he could have examined anyone from his family, or the
neighbours, in this regard.  He did not choose to do so.

There cannot be a better proof of the pleadings of a person in a given case.
The most significant aspect of a Hindu Marriage is the tying of 'thalibottu'
i.e., 'Mangalasutra'. 
 Even when the relations are strained, it remains on the
neck of the woman spouse,  as a sacred bond.  Any attempt made by the woman spouse   
to remove it, either out of anger, or without any bad intention; is found fault with. 
 In the instant case, the appellant filed I.A.No.262 of
2011, with a prayer to direct the respondent herein to return the Mangalasutra.
That only shows his lack of regard for the sacred bond.  There cannot be a
better instance of cruelty to a woman,in the hands of a spouse, than to be asked to return the Mangalasutra.  Though the I.A was dismissed, the appellant has signified his disrespect to the
marriage, and proved his acts of cruelty towards the respondent.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the decree passed by the trial
Court.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.  
_______________________  
K.G. SHANKAR, J.
Dt.12-04-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.