1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARMAVARAM
Present:- Smt. B.Krishnaveni,
Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram
Tuesday, the 8th day of March, 2022
Original Petition No. 2/2018
Between:
G.Radha, W/o G.Veera Narappa, D/o C.Mallaiah, aged about 28 years, Hindu, House wife, residing at Sesham palli village,
H/o Kuntimaddi, Ramagiri Mandal.
,.. Petitioner.
And
G.Veera Narappa, S/o Late G.Ganganna, aged about 32 years,
Hindu, Weaver, residing at Pothukunta village and Post,
Dharmavaram Mandal.
… Respondent.
This petition coming on 07.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Krishna Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri S.Ramanjineyulu, Sri K.Kishore Kumar and Sri K.Ashok Kumar,
Advocates for the respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
O R D E R
1. This petition is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 praying this Court to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner
G.Radha and against the respondent G.Veera Narappa for dissolution of matrimonial tie between the petitioner and respondent, dated 30.04.2004 by a decree of divorce, award costs of the petition and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief averments as set-out in the petition are as follows:
The petitioner G.Radha is the legally wedded wife of the respondent
G.Veera Narappa. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.04.2004 in accordance with the Hindu Marriage rites and customs prevalent in their community at Seshampalli village,
Ramagiri Mandal. After the marriage the petitioner went to the 2 matrimonial home of the respondent at Pothukunta village and lived happily about three years without having any troubles. Thereafter the respondent and his family members started to harassment to the petitioner for the additional dowry. The respondent harassed petitioner both physically and mentally, inspite of harassment of respondent and his family members the petitioner did not inform to her parents about the harassment and lived amicably with the respondent. Due to wedlock they begotten two children G.Anil, aged about 11 years and G.Archana, aged about 10 years. The respondent is addicted to bad habits like drinking, gambling and used to abuse in filthy language and beat the petitioner often and often mercilessly without any reasonable cause and the respondent is suspecting the character of the petitioner. The elders have conveyed panchayat and advised the respondent and the petitioner to live happily. The respondent is a sadist nature and three years back the respondent dragged the petitioner into the street of Pothukunta village and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately at the late night the respondent necked out the petitioner from the house. The respondent was not allowed the petitioner into the house and the petitioner was kept in the street all the night. The petitioner on the next day went to the house of her parents and informed about the harassment.
3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that parents of the petitioner and elders number of times requested the respondent and his family members to make an amicable solution by way of joining her with the respondent to lead a happy marital life but all the efforts ways she tried to get change in his attitude including through the elders had became invain and also the respondent never hears the words of the petitioner’s parents also. Even the parents of the respondent are also not advised the respondent in a good manner and the respondent deserted the petitioner.
The respondent and his parents are demanding additional dowry to allow 3 the petitioner to join with the respondent to lead happy marital life. The petitioner suffered all the torture with a fond hope that one day or the other, the respondent will get change in her behaviour and attitude and will lead happy marital life with him but his hopes had gone to winds.
Further, since three years the petitioner is residing at her parent’s house.
The petitioner is not in a position to resist the high handedness of the respondent and hence, the petitioner has no other option except to get the dissolution of the matrimonial tie between the petitioner and respondent.
Hence, the petition.
4. The respondent G.Veera Narappa filed counter and denied all the allegations made against him, except those allegations which are admitted herein. It is submitted that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 30.04.200 in accordance with the Hindu Marriage rites and customs prevalent in their community at Seshampalli village,
Ramagiri Mandal. After the marriage the petitioner went to the matrimonial home of the respondent at Pothukunta village and lived happily about three years without having any troubles. Due towed lock they begotten two children G.Anil, aged about 11 years and G.Archana, aged about 10 years. The respondent further submitted that the respondent never deserted the petitioner at anytime and the petitioner herself deserted the respondent and went to her parents’ house. The respondent and his family members never demanded the petitioner for
additional dowry and the respondent never harassed the petitioner for
want of additional dowry as alleged by the petitioner in the petition. The respondent never beat the petitioner and this respondent never thrown the petitioner from his house but the petitioner herself went away to her parents’ house without informing to the respondent. The petitioner 4 demanding the respondent to put up separate family or to come for an illatam for that the respondent not agreed because the respondent is having old aged mother and he is the only person to look after her for that the petitioner bore grudge against the respondent and went away to her parents’ house. The respondent so many times requested the petitioner to come and join with the respondent to lead matrimonial life but the petitioner refused the same. The respondent so many times requested the petitioner to come and join with the respondent for children future but the petitioner never heard the words of the respondent. The respondent so many times held panchayaths through elders to get back the petitioner but the petitioner and her parents are bluntly refused the same. The respondent is not addicted to any bad vices like drinking, gambling as stated by the petitioner in this petition and it is only invented for the purpose of filing this unjust petition for getting wrongful gain. The petitioner’s family shifted to Bangalore about six years back and they have settled at Bangalore. The petitioner also thinking that she wants to shift the family to Bangalore and she wants to stay with her parents and for that the petitioner put pressure on the respondent to shift the family or to come as illatam for that respondent refused, for that the petitioner bore grudge on respondent and left the company the respondent and went away to her parental house. The respondent even till today also interested to lead happy marital life with the petitioner if she change her attitude and return back and join with the respondent. The respondent is thinking the future of the children and the respondent is requesting the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the petition and direct the petitioner to come and join with the respondent with children to lead happy life. Hence, the respondent prayed the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the petition.
5. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner G.Radha examined herself as P.W.1 and she got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. One third party 5
C.Anjineyulu himself examined as P.W.2. The respondent G.Veera Narappa filed counter but he did not adduce his evidence on his behalf.
6. The petitioner G.Radha filed her chief evidence affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C and she was examined as P.W.1. On perusal of chief evidence affidavit of P.W.1, it is find that she deposed in replica to her petition averments. Ex.P.1 Wedding card, dated 30.04.2004 and Ex.P.2 is the marriage photo along with C.D. P.W.1 testimony that in her cross- examination she is an illiterate and her marriage proposal was new relationship. Prior to her marriage there is no engagement was performed.
Her marriage was performed with the respondent any her parents house on 30.04.2004. After time of marriage her parents gave one pair of gold ear studs and gold ring to her. The marriage expenses spent by her parents to her and the respondent parents spent the marriage expenses to the respondent. She did not mention in her chief affidavit her gold jewelleries kept with the respondent. She is having one younger sister and younger brother and her sister already married and her younger brother is bachelor. Her younger sister is resident of Bangalore. Her father is a watchman in Priyadharshi Vidya Mandhir private at Pothukunta,
Dharmavaram. Her mother is attending coolie works at Shesampalli village of Ramagiri mandal. Her father has got own land is an extent of Ac.2.00 cents. Prior to filing of the present H.M.O.P. she issued legal notice to the respondent through her counsel, but she does not know whether it is filed
before the Hon’ble Court. Her in-laws did not having own house at
Pothukunta village. Herself and the respondent were residing in Lonikota at Dharmavaram for some period. Herself and the respondent were residing at Bangalore for two years. After one year of her marriage she blessed a male child by name G.Anil, age 11 years and her female child by name G.Archana, age 10 years. At present her children are studied in
Bangalore. Her husband has got two brothers including him and he is the younger brother. Her sister-in-law marriage held prior to her marriage.
6
Before her marriage the elder brother of her husband has put up separate
family. Her children are studying in Government school at Bangalore. She is attending coolie works in her village and she is earning Rs.200/- per a day. When she is residing in Bangalore by the time her mother-in-law, her sister-in-law was came to her and they suggested her to join with her husband. When she was residing in Shesampalli village by the time the brother of the respondent and his wife came to her and advised her to join with the respondent and that on the request of brother of the respondent and his wife, she joined with the respondent. She does not know the name of the articles and the particulars of the articles which she mentioned in her chief affidavit as well as in her petition pleadings. Herself and the respondent are frequently quarrel and made galata to each and another and that her children are suffering with mentally. When she was residing in Ramagiri Mandal by the time the respondent consumed alcohol and he harassed her, but she did not lodge criminal case against her husband in
Ramagiri Police Station. The panchayath was held in the house of her parents and the house of the parents of the respondent at Pothukunta for reunion between her and the respondent, but it is not fruitful. She did not mention the name of the elders who are attending in mediation either in her petition or in her chief affidavit. She got mention in her chief affidavit about the bad vices of the respondent. She did not lodge any criminal case against the respondent due to degraded the respect to their family members in the society to the behaviour of the respondent and that she did not mention the same neither in her pleadings nor in her chief affidavit. She denied the suggestion that her niece prepared her petition and he filed the present H.M.O.P., on behalf of her. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing false for case purpose, her jewelleries never kept with the respondent. She denied the suggestion that she is residing along with her mother at Shesampalli village. She denied the suggestion that her children studied in private school at Bangalore with 7 the assistance of her younger sister and her husband. She denied the suggestion that the brother of the respondent never met with her younger brother and that the brother of the respondent never talked and given assurance to her younger brother to take back her with the fold of the respondent. She denied the suggestion that there is no panchayats were held between her and the respondent and that she did not mention the name of the panchayatdars in her petition as well as in her chief affidavit.
She denied the suggestion that she is not ready and willing to join with the respondent for kapuram. She denied the suggestion that her husband came to late hours to the home with a drunken state and he beat her and harassed her on every day, but she did not lodge any criminal case against her husband. She denied the suggestion that herself, her younger sister and her husband and her parents never beat the respondent and never snatched the cash from the respondent. She denied the suggestion that her husband addicted to all bad vices and that he beat her and that left the company to her with bring the cash from almairah. She denied the suggestion that her younger sister and her parents are tutored her and that she deserted to the respondent and that she filed the present
H.M.O.P, against her husband and that she obtained divorce from her husband with alleged false allegations. She denied the suggestion that the respondent never sent any amount to her and her children for maintenance. She denied the suggestion that the respondent is doing labour work and that his earnings are insufficient to her to lead luxuries life and that she filed the present H.M.O.P, against the respondent for obtaining divorce.
7. P.W.2 C.Anjineyulu filed his chief evidence affidavit under Order 18
Rule 4 of C.P.C and he was examined as P.W.2. On perusal of chief evidence affidavit of P.W.2, it is find that he deposed in replica to the chief affidavit of P.W.1. P.W.2 testimony that in his cross-examination 8 previously he was attending mason works at about 10 years ago. At present he is not doing any work due to his ill health. He does not know the case facts prior to filing of chief affidavit. He is an illiterate, but he was learned his signature only. He cannot say marriage date, month and year.
He came to Dharmavaram for last 20 years,after he came to Dharmavaram then he performed the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. The petitioner is the own daughter of his elder brother. He cannot say the parents names of the respondent and his residential door number. The respondent did one sister and one brother, but he cannot say their names.
At the time of marriage the father of the petitioner gave one pair of ear studs with jumkees. Due to lack of financial capacity the father of the petitioner did not given more gold ornaments to the petitioner. He is resident of Dharmavaram Town and his elder brother i.e., father of the petitioner is resident of village at the distance of 50 to 60 K.Ms. from
Dharmavaram and that he does not know the presentation particulars of the marriage of the petitioner. At the time of marriage the brother of the respondent is already put up separate family and that the respondent and his mother are living together. He does not know whether the respondent and his mother made harassment to the petitioner. He did not mention in his chief affidavit how much amount and how much gold demanded to the petitioner by the respondent and his mother. He is ready and willing to send the petitioner to her matrimonial home if the petitioner is willing.
They conducting the mediation between the petitioner and the respondent for several times in the village of petitioner i.e., Shesamapalli village and that he attending mediation for one time only. He cannot say date and name of the elders who are participated in the said mediation. The sister, her husband, mother of the respondent went to the house of petitioner at
Shesamapalli village and conducting the panchayats at the house of petitioner. The parents of the petitioner went to the house of respondent at Pothukunta village for conducting mediation between the petitioner and 9 the respondent, but she cannot say name of the elders who are conducting the mediation. The respondent beat the petitioner on a drunken state for several times and that the petitioner lodged a criminal case against the respondent in police station, but he did not give police case against the respondent. He denied the suggestion that the marriage expenses spent by the father of the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that the respondent never addicted to bad habits like drinking, gambling and used to abuse in filthy language to the petitioner and that he got mention the above contents only for case purpose. He denied the suggestion that the respondent is suspected the character of the petitioner always. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to the help of petitioner. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner demanded to the respondent to put up a family at Bangalore and that the respondent rejected the request of the petitioner due to the mother of the respondent is aged and that the respondent look after the welfare of his mother. He denied the suggestion that the respondent given the security for the chit amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to his son Siva and that he is deposing false intended to avoid the chit amount. He denied the suggestion that he got mentioned the contents of his chief affidavit with alleged false allegations against the respondent.
8 Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent did not submit any arguments, hence, the arguments were treated as heard.
9. Now the points for consideration are:
(1). Whether the marital tie exists between the petitioner and the
respondent?
(2). Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of divorce on
the ground of cruelty and desertion?”
10. Point No.(1) and (2):- So far as per the 1st aspect is concerned, the petitioner G.Radha averred that she married the respondent on 10 30.04.2004 as per the Hindu Marriage rites and customs prevalent in their community at her residence of Seshampalli village. The respondent
G.Veera Narappa did not deny the marital relationship. Hence, the marital relationship stands proved.
11. In the instant case, the petitioner G.Radha had sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. At first, I shall take the case of desertion. As seen from the record, the petitioner G.Radha averred that the respondent G.Veera Narappa left her conjugal society and he started to harass on her for the additional dowry. The respondent harassed her both physically and mentally. Inspite of harassment the respondent and his family members, she did not inform her parents about the harassment and lived amicably with the respondent. Due to wedlock they begotten two children namely G.Anil, aged about 11 years and G.Archana, aged about 10 years. The respondent is addicted to bad habits like drinking, gambling and used to abuse in filthy language and beat her oftenly and oftenly mercilessly without any reasonable cause and the respondent is suspecting her character. The elders have conveyed panchayat and advised the respondent and herself to live happily. The respondent is a sadist nature and three years back the respondent dragged her into the street of Pothukunta village and beat with hands and legs indiscriminately and at the late night the respondent necked out her from the house of the respondent and the respondent not allowed her into the house. She was kept in the street all the night. On the next day she went to the house of her parents and informed about the harassment.
12. As seen, she filed this petition on 23.12.2017. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
13. At this juncture, it would be useful to extract Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it reads as follows; 11
Section 13. Divorce:- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition
presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree
of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary
sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the
petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not
less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition; or,
So, when the language employed in Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of
Hindu Marriage Act is read, there should be desertion for a
continuous period not less than two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition.
14. In the case of K.S.B.V.L. Narasimha Rao Vs Kamisetty Suguna reported in 2010 Vol. (5) ALD page 678 (DB), it was held that,
“Mere living apart by the parties is not desertion. The desertion
indicates a state of mind in which a party who is guilty of the act
must indicate either in express words or by conduct to put an end to
the relationship. The burden of proving of the fact of desertion lies
on the person who alleged it. Desertion in the context of matrimonial
law represents a legal conception. The essential ingredients of the
offence in order that it may furnish a good ground or relief or (1) Factum of separation, (2) Intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end amnious descendry.
(3) The element of permanence which is a prime contention requires
that both these essential ingredients should continued during the entire statutory period of two years immediately preceding presentation of the petitioner for divorce.
It held that when there is evidence on record to establish the desertion within aforesaid three essential ingredients and infact the very establishment of amnious descendry on the part of one of the spouse is absent, the petition may be allowed.
12
15. Considering the provisions of law and the fact that the petitioner
G.Radha filed this petition on 23.12.2017 pleading that the respondent
G.Veera Narappa left her conjugal society since three years from the date of filing this petition, it should be held that the period of two years had lapsed. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion.
16. As noted above during the trial of this petition, the petitioner
G.Radha examined herself as R.W.1. She filed an chief affidavit under
Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C which was found to be verbatim similar to the contents of her petition. In such evidence, as if the respondent G.Veera
Narappa is husband and that they got married on 30.04.2004 as per the
Hindu Marriage rites and customs prevalent in their community at her residence at Shesampalli village of Ramagiri Mandal and that after marriage she joined with the respondent to the matrimonial home of the respondent at Pothukunta village and lived happily about three years without having any troubles. Thereafter the respondent and his family members started to harassment at her for the additional dowry due to bad vices of the respondent. The respondent harassed her both physically and mentally. Due to wedlock they begotten two children namely G.Anil, aged about 11 years and G.Archana, aged about 10 years. The respondent left her conjugal society i.e., he deserted her. Hence, she sought for the divorce.
17. The petitioner examined third party by name G.Anjineyulu as P.W.2 and he filed an chief affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C, which was found to be verbatim similar to the contents of chief affidavit of P.W.1.
P.W.2’s evidence is corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, in all material facts. As seen from the record, the respondent filed his counter through his counsel except that he did not adduce any evidence on his behalf for 13 supporting his contention. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 G.Radha should be deemed to be proved and correct.
18. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 G.Radha and P.W.2 C.Anjineyulu and Ex.P.1 wedding card, dated 30.04.2004 and Ex.P.2 the marriage photo along with C.D., the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, dated 30.04.2004 stands proved. It is the specific case of the petitioner that since three years she is residing separately with the respondent from the date of filing of this petition, the respondent left the conjugal society/deserted her. Inspite of mediations he did not join, that the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of desertion. Hence, the petition can be allowed. The points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
19. In the result, the petition is allowed granting divorce to the petitioner
G.Radha dissolving her marriage with the respondent G.Veera Narappa performed on 30.04.2004 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Directed both the parties do bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of March, 2022.
Sd/-B.Krishnaveni,
Senior Civil Judge
Dharmavaram.
Appendix of evidence
W itnesses examined for
Petitioner:
P.W.1: G.Radha.
P.W.2: C.Anjineyulu.
Respondent:
-None-
Documents marked for Petitioner
Ex.P.1: Wedding card, dt.30.04.2004.
Ex.P.2: Marriage photo along with C.D.
14
Documents marked for Respondent
- NIL -
Id/- B.K.V. S.C.J.