H.M.O.P.No.89/2014112-04-2019
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL
PRESENT: SMT.M.K.PADMAVATHI,
Senior Civil Judge,
Jagtial.
Friday, the 12th day of April, 2019
H. M. O. P. No. 89 of 2014
Between:-
Dasarapu Gangadhar, S/o.Late Venkati, Age: 28 years, Occ: Taddy Tapper, R/o.Konapur V/o Sarangapur mandal. …Petitioner. A N D Dasarapu Anitha @ Mamatha, W/o.Gangadhar, Age: 26 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Laxmidevipalli V/o Sarangapur mandal.
….Respondent.
This petition coming on 29-03-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Venugopal Advocate for Petitioner and Sri A Narsaiah, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying this court a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, directing the respondent to join the marital company of the petitioner.
2. The contents of the petition in brief, are as follows: The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, their marriage solemnized on 11-12-2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals in Lord
Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Kondagattu. The petitioner is visiting Gulf countries for more than ten years before his marriage. After returning to India, he married with the respondent. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not led any happy marital life with the respondent even a single day and as soon as after his marriage to his utter surprise the
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014212-04-2019
respondent expressed her disinterest against him and started to quarrel with him on petty reasons demanding him to provide vast amounts for lavish desires. The respondent in spite of giving all amenities not satisfied and used to insult the petitioner and his widowed mother and demanded the petitioner to put separate family. When the petitioner refused such different proposals on the pretext that he is the only son to his widowed mother, but the respondent not accepted the same and other hand continued her ill treatment towards the petitioner.
Further the respondent used to suspect the petitioner, whenever the petitioner returns home, she used to search his pockets and used to check the mobile phone and also used to blame the petitioner that he is having extra-matrimonial relations with others and in that regard the respondent used to abuse the petitioner in the presence of locality people and relatives. The respondent by making frequent quarrels used to leave the company of the petitioner twice in a week since her parent's village adjacent to the village of the petitioner. The respondent neither discharged any household duties nor gave respect either to the petitioner or his widowed mother in any manner. The respondent also instructed the petitioner to stay at his native village only without preferring to go gulf country, and if the petitioner makes any efforts, she will see his end though the petitioner vexed the activities of the respondent but patiently tolerated all said acts with fond hope that respondent may change her behaviour but in vain. On the other hand on 28-10-2014 having seriously quarrelled with the petitioner without any valid reason she beat the petitioner with hands and also threatened that she would file false criminal proceeding against the petitioner and his mother for dowry harassment etc. and
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014312-04-2019
left the company of the petitioner. The petitioner lost all his hopes against the respondent he made several efforts for the reunion by visiting the house of the respondent, but she refused to join him.
Hence with no other options, he prayed the court by way of this petition decree for restitution of conjugal right.
3. On the other hand, respondent filed counter by admitting the relationship with the petitioner but she denied all other petition averments. The respondent submitted that at the time of marriage her parents on demand made by the petitioner and his mother had presented net cash of Rs.3,70,000/-, 5 ½ tulas gold, household articles like Cots, Almirah, Cooler, Fan, Fridge, Sofa set etc., worth of
Rs.1,90,000/- to the respondents towards dowry thereafter they lived amicable only for 10 months. In fact the petitioner is chronic adamant person he without any reasonable cause used to took up quarrels with the respondent by developing hate redness towards her, started harassing her on flimsy grounds and further the petitioner, his mother and his maternal uncle all together started harassing her every day and demanding to bring Rs.5,00,000/- cash from her parents. Due to unbearable harassment, the petitioner informed the same to her family members who in turn approached village elders namely Jainapuram
Rajesham and Pothuganti Rajavva who contacted the petitioner and his mother and advised them not to harass respondent even that also petitioner did not change his attitude. The petitioner also addicted to bad vices and used to come home late in the night by consuming alcohol and used to beat her. On 28-10-2014 at noon the petitioner harassed the respondent physically and mentally by betting her by questioning as to why she conducted a panchayat through Jainapuram
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014412-04-2019
Rajesham and Pothuganti Rajavva and necked out from their house.
After that, the parents of the petitioner at her instance got held several panchayats, but they have not changed their attitude. Having vexed with the cruel posture of the petitioner and her mother the respondent lodged a criminal case on 25-02-2015 in P.S. Sarangapur on that police
Sarangapur registered a case in Cr.No.12/2015 under Section 498-A of
I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. She further submitted that in fact there is a life threat to her in the hands of the petitioner and his family members as such she is not intending to join his society. Since the petitioner necked out from his house at present, she is leading a miserable life at the mercy of her parents. She further submitted that she is having a life treat in the hands of the petitioner and she does not intend to join the society of the petitioner to led marital life with him.
She further submitted that the present petition is filed on baseless and false allegations and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4.During the course of trial on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as PW1 and got examined his mother as PW2. On behalf of the respondent, she examined herself as RW1 and got examined her father as RW2 and one of the panchayat elder as RW3.
5.Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
6. Now the Points that arises for consideration are:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, directing the respondent to come and join into the marital company of the petitioner?
2. To what relief?
7. Point No.1:- It is the contention of the petitioner in his petition and also in his evidence that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014512-04-2019
their marriage held on 11-12-2013. After the wedding, the respondent had not led any happy marital life to the petitioner even for a single day. Since after his marriage the respondent expressed her disinterest against him and started to quarrel with him on petty reasons demanding him to provide huge amounts for her lavish desires and also pressurised him to set up separate family and also used to torture petitioner and his widowed mother without any reason. She also used to suspect the character of the petitioner and on 28-10-2014 having seriously quarrel with the petitioner without any valid reason she beat the petitioner with hands and even by threatening to file criminal case left the company of the petitioner.
7(i) The petitioner in support of his claim got examined his mother Shankaramma as PW2. She deposed in the same lines as that of Pw1. This court observed that PWs1 and 2 in their evidence stated that the respondent used to suspect the character of Pw1 and used to blame him, saying that he had extramarital relations with others and used to pick up quarrels in the presence of locality people and relatives and also by beating him she left the conjugal society. Admittedly the petitioner had not examined the so-called locality people and relatives in whose presence the respondent pickup quarrel with the petitioner by suspecting his character.
Further this court observed that as contended by the petitioner if he really made any efforts to bring back the respondent to his conjugal society, why he filed the present petition within 2 days of the alleged incident without making any efforts to bring back her. Which itself establishes the petitioner himself necked out respondent for want of
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014612-04-2019
additional dowry and due to fear and as a precaution filed the present
petition to overcome the criminal cases if any filed by the respondent.
7(ii). Admittedly the present petition is filed under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act. Three essential conditions for Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act are-
Firstly, one party must have withdrawn from the society of the other; secondly, the withdrawal must be without any reasonable reason, and thirdly, the aggrieved party applies for the restitution of conjugal rights.
Once these conditions are fulfilled, the court may decree of restitution of conjugal rights to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties.
If the aggrieved party is unable to convince the court and it founds that the petitioner is guilty then the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not granted. An added advantage from this is that if the parties are not following the decree for cohabitation after the passing of the decree, continuously for one year, it becomes a ground for divorce under Section 13.
Reasonable grounds on which petition for Restitution of
Conjugal Rights can be rejected a. First, if the respondent has a ground on which he or she can claim any matrimonial relief; b. Second, if the petitioner is guilty of any matrimonial misconduct; c. Third, if the petitioner is guilty of such act, omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the respondent to live with him; for
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014712-04-2019
instance, husband’s neglect of his wife or the constant demand for dowry, etc. are some reasonable ground for wife not to join the company of her husband.
Burden of proof under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act:-
Burden of proof operates at two levels. Firstly, burden of proof is on the aggrieved/petitioner who needs to prove that the respondent has withdrawn from his society. Once that burden is discharged by the petitioner, it falls on the respondent to prove that there exists a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal.
7(iii) In this case, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is a chronic adamant person, and without any reasonable cause, he used to took up a quarrel with her and developed hatred ness towards her. She further stated that petitioner harasser demanding to bring an additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents and in pursuance of their illegal demand on 28-10-2014 at noon, petitioner beat her indiscriminately and necked out her from their house, and his mother and maternal uncle supported the petitioner in his act. The respondent to establish her contention and to prove the cruelty of the petitioner herself examined as RW1 and examined her father as RW2 and one of the panchayat elders as RW3. The chief examination affidavit of RW1 is the replica of her counter averments.
7(iv). The petitioner in his evidence stated that on 28-10-2014 respondent left his society by threatening him to file a criminal case.
This court observed that the present case was filed on 30-10-2014 within two days of the said alleged incident. As contended by the petitioner if the respondent threatened the petitioner of filing criminal cases, she could have filed a complaint against the petitioner on the
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014812-04-2019
same day, i.e., on 28-10-2014 or immediately after receipt of the summons, but the reality is far away from the contention raised by the petitioner. The respondent received summon in this case on 29-12- 2014, and she filed counter on 24-04-2015 and this court also observed that the respondent filed a complaint on 25-05-2015 after three months of receipt of summons in the present O.P. It is the evidence of the Rw1 that after 28-10-2014 several times they held panchayats and send village elders to the house of the petitioner to convince them. Only when all the efforts went vain, they lodged a criminal complaint. The respondent to prove the fact of conduct of panchayat and to establish all the efforts shown by them to patch up their marital life got examined one of the panchayat elders by name
P.Rajavva who visited the house of the petitioner to admonished them not to harass the respondent. RW3 in her chief examination stated that in the year 2013 she attended the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner. At the time of marriage as per the demand made by the petitioner the parents of the respondent presented dowry amount. After the wedding, respondent has joined with the petitioner and led happy marital life for ten months, and odd after that she came to know through the parents of the respondent that respondent has been suffering in the hands of the petitioner and his mother and they are harassing her for want of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Upon which at the request of the father of the respondent, she along with
J.Rajesham and the father of the respondent, approached the petitioner and his mother and advised them not to harass the respondent. But later she came to know that the petitioner and his mother have not changed their attitude and continued to harass the
H.M.O.P.No.89/2014912-04-2019
respondent and finally necked out her from the house in the year 2014.
He also stated since then she is residing along with her parents.
7(v). The counsel for the petitioner cross examined RW3. During the cross-examination, she admitted that the respondent belongs to her caste. She attended the marriage of the parties. After the marriage, they resided together only for ten months. She and One
J.Rajesham acted as an elder and conducted panchayat at Konapur village after the panchayat petitioner has taken back respondent along with him, but after one week only, he sent her back for want of
additional dowry. This court observed that the petitioner had not given
a single suggestion to Rw3 by denaying his evidence. Hence non-denial of the testimony of the Rw3 which itself establishes that the evidence of RW3 is true and correct. Thus the evidence of Rw3 itself sufficient to prove the cruelty of the petitioner towards the respondent.
7(vi). This court further observed that RW2 who is none other than the father of the respondent also corroborated the testimony of
RW1 and RW3 and deposed in the same lines as that of RW1 and 3.
Though the counsel for the petitioner cross-examined Rw2 at length, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence.infact he stick on to his version and deposed about the harassment of the petitioner and his mother for want of additional dowry and also conduct of panchayats.
7(vii). As already discussed above the respondent in her counter itself categorically stated that even though the respondent is ready to take back her to his conjugal society, she is not intending to join him, as she is having life threat in the hands of petitioner. RW1 in her cross- examination also categorically stated that even though the respondent ready to take her to his conjugal society she does not intend to join
H.M.O.P.No.89/20141012-04-2019
him, as she has life threat in the hands of the petitioner. Thus, after going through the evidence of Rws.1 to 3, this court observed that there is a truth in the contention raised by the respondent that the petitioner harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and by demanding the same he necked out from his society. This court observed that the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial misconduct and he is guilty of such act, omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the respondent to live with him. Further there is a reasonable ground for the respondent not to join the company of petitioner.
7(viii). Therefore in the light of the above discussion, this court felt that there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and this court cannot compel the respondent to join the conjugal society of the petitioner even though she is having life threat in the hands of the petitioner. When the respondent herself is not willing to join the society of the petitioner, pressurizing her to join the petitioner is meaningless.
Accordingly this point is answered against to the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
8. In the result this petition is dismissed, without costs.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 12th day of April, 2019.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Jagtial Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For the Petitioner For the Respondent
PW1.Dasarapu Gangadhar. RW1.Dasarapu Anitha @ Mamatha. PW2.Dasarapu Shankaramma. RW2.G.Narayana. RW3.P.Rajavva.
H.M.O.P.No.89/20141112-04-2019
Exhibits marked
For the Petitioner For the Respondent
---Nil--- ---Nil---
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Jagtial