Sri M.v.ramesh ., B.com.,llm.,pgdvs

IN THE FAMILY COURT-CUIM-IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Mr M.V.Ramesh, B.Com, LL.M., PGDVS,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 18th day of June, 2012

M.C No.171/2008

Between: 1.Duse Padmavathi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, C/o. Melimi Suryanarayana, Uppaluru, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 2.Duse Lakshmi Sathya Sree, D/o. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 3 years, being minor represented by Guardian and mother Duse Padmavathi,W/o. Venkateswara Rao, C/o. Melimi Suryanarayana, Uppaluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal. Krishna District. ….Petitioners.

Vs

Duse Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Employee in L.M.S.S, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Eluru Division, Vegiwada, West Godavari District. ….Respondent.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and Sri G.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Respondent and that the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

RELIEF PRAYED FOR : This is a M.C filed by the Petitioners – Wife and Daughter against the Respondent-Husband under Section 125

CrPC, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the Petitioners, from the date of filing of the petition and to award costs of the petition.

2.CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

2

It is averred that the marriage of the first petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 25.8.2004 at Dwaraka Tirumala as per Hindu rites and customs Out of wedlock one female child i.e., second petitioner was born on 14.11.2005. After that the respondent addicted to vices, like, drinking, debachtaring and began to harass the first petitioner without fault of her. The first petitioner brought the same to the Union Leaders, where the respondent had been working, who were admonished the respondent to mend his attitude. Finally on 29.6.2008 the respondent mercilessly beat the first petitioner and thrown her out of his house situated at

Polasanipalli village, Bhimadolu Mandal. As there is no way, the first petitioner gave a complaint to the S.H.O, Bhimadolu P.S., against the respondent. As the respondent refused to provide maintenance or shelter at Polasanipalli, petitioners have been living in the house of first petitioner’s father at Uppuluru and leading their life upon the mercy of him.

3.It is further averred that the respondent is working as

Linemen in A.P.E.D.C.L at Vegiwada, West Godavari District and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and also the respondent is having land and house properties worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- and getting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per year on it. Considering the present day cost of living and income derived by the respondent, the petitioners require an amount of Rs.4,000/- each per month towards their maintenance. Hence, the petitioners got issued a notice to the respondent on 11.9.2008 demanding him to pay the maintenance at Rs.4,000/- per month each commencing from the date of filing of the petition to till date of payment. The respondent received the said notice and got issued a reply on 25.9.08 with all false and untenable allegations. The petitioners got issued rejoinder notice to the reply notice with all true facts. Hence the petitioners pray the Court to grant maintenance.

4.CASE OF THE RESPONDENT:

Respondent filed counter denying all the material allegations against him. It is stated that the first petitioner as well as her parents suppressed several facts before the marriage, that the 3 first petitioner is a tampered lady and she is in the habit of leading luxurious life and spending huge amounts without considering the financial position of the respondent. If the first petitioner was questioned about her attitude, she used to left to her parents’ house by deserting the respondent. The first petitioner is having close friendship with the woman of easy virtue of the locality for which the respondent put an objection and with the active support and instigation of such elements, the first petitioner had disturbed her marital relation with the respondent. The first petitioner used to torture and harass the respondent by abusing him before his colleagues, staff and neighbours simply to show her superiority which deteriorated the status of the respondent in the eyes of his friend circle, office staff and totally in the society. The first petitioner is having the habit of changing her spouses in career and suppressed the number of legal and illegal marriages. Hence, the marriage that took place between the first petitioner and respondent is not legal. The first petitioner wilfully deserted the respondent on her own will with an intention to demand him huge amounts.

5.It is averred that the respondent is working as a Lineman in A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Vegivada, West Godavari and drawing a net salary of Rs.1400/- per month after all statutory deductions, court attachments and deductions for bank loan payments. Moreover, the first petitioner is having immovable property at Uppuluru worth of

Rs.10,00,000/- and the first petitioner is getting income by way of rents to a tune of Rs.5,000/- per month. The first petitioner is also doing tailoring and designing works and earning an amount of

Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. As such, the first petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent and her allegations that the petitioners are starving is a tissue of falsehood, devoid of any truth and through other channels and other financial sources, totally she is earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and totally she is earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month.

6. Further it is averred that on 1.4.09 the first petitioner and her father and her brothers and another came to the office of 4 the respondent at Vegivada in an Ambassador Car and beat the respondent black and blue when he was on duty. The respondent filed a complaint and it is pending. On 31.1.2009 the first petitioner, her father and her brother and some others beat the respondent at

Uppuluru when he went there at the request of the 1st petitioner for settlement. They also influenced the Kankipadu Police and harassed the respondent and obtained signatures of the respondent on blank white papers. Thus, the first petitioner is bent upon filing false criminal cases and harassing the respondent with ulterior motive and for wrongful gain to mulct the respondent for huge amounts. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

7.On behalf of the petitioners Pw1 to Pw5 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are marked. On behalf of the respondent, Rw1 to Rw4 are examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.

8.On the basis of the above pleadings, the sole point that arises for determination is :-

POINT FOR DETERMINATION: “Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC against the Respondent?”

9. POINT :- Pw1, who is no other than the first Petitioner herein and wife of the Respondent, deposed corroborating the averments of the petition and relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 in support of her claim. Pw1 further deposed after filing this M.C, the Respondent has availed

Voluntary Retirement in the year 2009 and he received Rs.

10,00,000/- towards retirement benefits and he is drawing the pension of Rs.13,000/- per month. The Respondent owns house at

Polasanipalli worth of Rs.50,00,000/- and getting income of

Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. On the other hand, Rw1, who is no other than the Respondent herein deposed corroborating the averments of the Counter and relied on Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 in support of the defence.

Further he deposed that if he dies in harness, she can get employment and contract another marriage. The first petitioner used to borrow moneys in the name of the respondent. She also 5 used to harass him to bring amounts to give the same to her parents. Rw1 further deposed that in a road accident his right little finger was amputated and he sustained injuries to ribs and that he is spending Rs.8,000/- per month for treatment. The first petitioner has suppressed about her earlier marriages and she has not obtained divorce from her second husband. He has no sufficient means to pay any maintenance to the petitioners and that the first petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain themselves.

10.In this case the respondent’s defence is mainly two folds, one is under Ex.D1-Agreement the matter was settled outside the court and so the petitioners are not entitled for maintenance.

The another defense urged by the respondent is that the first petitioner voluntarily left the society of the respondent without any reasonable cause and the petitioners were not either neglected or refused by the respondent.

11.Coming to the first defence raised, from a keen perusal of Ex.D1-Agreement signed by both the parties, the respondent agreed to gift the house property at Polasanipalli village, Bhimadolu mandal in favour of the second petitioner-daughter and the minor should enjoy the property with all the rights after the life time of the respondent herein, and on such execution of Gift Deed or

Settlement Deed, the first petitioner has to withdraw the present M.C and she is not supposed to file any another case against the respondent and both agreed to obtain divorce from the Court of law.

From Ex.D2-Copy of the Gift Deed executed on the same day of agreement, the respondent settled the said house property in favour of the second petitioner, reserving the life interest in favour of the respondent and to enjoy the usufructs of the said property by the respondent during his life time. First of all,an agreement said to have been executed outside the court, pending this M.C cannot be recognized in order to set at naught the dispute or controversy between the parties and it cannot be used or recognized legally to restrict the legal right of the petitioners to claim maintenance. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the parties entered into settlement outside the court, once it is not recorded or recognized 6 by the modes enumerated under Section 89 CPC, it will not get any sanctity of law to put a full stop to this M.C. Even accepting Ex.D1 and D2 as it is at present, either the first petitioner or the second petitioner are not getting any income for their maintenance in view of reserving the life interest by the respondent in the house property covered by Ex.D2. Thus, the plea that the matter has been settled outside the court and the petitioners are not entitled for maintenance cannot be taken into consideration and on this ground the respondent cannot succeed in his defence.

12.Coming to the second ground urged by the respondent that is voluntary desertion by the first petitioner, the learned counsel

for the respondent raised a point that the marriage between the first

petitioner and respondent is not valid as the first petitioner has not obtained any divorce from the Court of law from her second husband- P.Venkateswara Rao, and so the marriage between them is void and the first petitioner is not entitled for maintenance.

Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and respondent is a third marriage to the first petitioner and second marriage to the respondent as Pw1 married initially one Kotta Venkateswara Rao and her husband K.Venkateswara Rao obtained divorce vide O.P No.

13/97 as he already got married another girl and filed the said O.P.

As regards to the divorce between the first petitioner and her second husband-Pilla Venkateswara Rao, even no suggestion was put to Pw1 by the respondent that she has not obtained any divorce from her second husband P.Venkateswara Rao and that she suppressed the said facts and contracted the marriage with the respondent, and therefore, prima facie, I find no force in the said contention.

13.Even Pw5 who is no other than the father of the first petitioner, also denied that the first petitioner has not obtained any divorce from her second husband-P.Venkateswara Rao. Merely because the O.P Number was not given by Pw1 and Pw5 through which first petitioner obtained divorce from her second respondent that alone is not a ground to say that she has not obtained divorce from her second husband and that she suppressed the said facts 7 prior to the marriage between the first petitioner and respondent.

Further from the cross examination of Pw1 it was elicited that even against second husband, the first petitioner filed M.C and criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and ultimately both the matters were settled before the court of law. Thus, it is not open for the respondent to deny the validity of the marriage between them, at this stage.

14.Further in this case even assuming for the sake of arguments that the first petitioner has not obtained divorce from her second husband, but in view of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the first petitioner and respondent even under the count of live in relationship between the first petitioner and respondent and since they lived as wife and husband to the knowledge of one and all and out of their wedlock and such relationship, they were blessed with second petitioner, the first petitioner is entitled for maintenance. Right from the beginning, it is not case of the respondent that the first petitioner suppressed the earlier marriages and married him. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the first petitioner is habituated to contract marriages living with the spouse for some time and then creating litigation against the spouses and thereafter bargaining the amounts through the litigation and therefore the first petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance. Prima facie, I find no force in the said contention for the reason that merely because the first petitioner filed case against her second husband that alone is not a ground to brand her as a cruel lady and creating litigation for the sake of money. After all, it is unfortunate for the first petitioner to get such situations in her life and that her fate cursed to be deserted by their spouses continuously for three times. Further in case of the first marriage it is the first husband-K.Venkateswara Rao, himself obtained divorce by marrying another girl. Even in case of second time, the petitioner was meted out to cruelty and so she filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against P.Venkateswara Rao and ultimately the matter was settled between them. Pw2, who is no other than the relative of Pw1, as Pw1 is niece to Pw2 deposed that K.China

Venkateswara Rao, the first husband of the first petitioner married 8 her and since he contracted another marriage with one Rama he gave divorce to her. The said K.China Venkateswara Rao is no other than her brother-in-law. Virtually nothing was elicited from the cross examination of Pw2 to discredit her testimony.

15.Pws 3 and 4, who are no other than independent witnesses and neighbours of first petitioner, deposed that respondent used to suspect the fidelity of the first petitioner and used to harass her and ultimately respondent driven her out of the house. Although the evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 is hearsay evidence, but they were informed by the first petitioner herself and therefore sufficient reliance can be placed on the evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 and absolutely they have no enemity with the respondent to speak falsehood against him. Pw5, who is no other than the father of the first petitioner, also deposed corroborating the evidence of Pw1 and

Pw4 and stated in categorical terms that the respondent used to suspect fidelity of the first petitioner and harassed her, beat her and driven her out of the house on 29.6.08. All the efforts, being the father put in by him, were also proved futile as the respondent refused for reunion. Further, he stated that he informed about the all the previous marriages to the respondent prior to the marriage.

Thus, the evidence of Pw1 to Pw5 and Ex.P1 to P8 are sufficient to conclude without any doubt that the respondent having addicted to vices suspected the fidelity of the first petitioner, subjected her to cruelty and ultimately driven her out of the house on 29.6.08 and ever since the first petitioner is taking shelter under her father.

Ex.P8 is one of the best piece of evidence which was prepared by the villagers dated 29.6.08 wherein the villagers have strongly condemned and objected the inhuman conduct of the respondent towards first petitioner including beating her black and blue by the respondent and it is the representation signed by about 44 villagers narrating the manner in which respondent used to harass the first petitioner. So, the respondent cannot except the signature of first petitioner in Ex.P8 as it is the voluntary action of the villagers against the conduct of the respondent. Thus, it can be said without any doubt and hesitation that the first petitioner never left the society of the respondent without any reasonable cause or reason.

9

16.Further from the cross examination of Rw1 several beneficial points have been elicited by the petitioner which are supporting the case of the first petitioner. Rw1 admitted that earlier he married one Seshamani prior to the marriage of the first petitioner and he had no issues through his first wife. He obtained divorce through the court from his first wife by mutual consent in the month of August, 2003. The first petitioner also filed a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in Bhimadolu P.S.

The respondent further admitted and stated that he is not willing to live with the first petitioner as there is life threat to him, without any basis. But he did not issue any notice to the first petitioner complaining any life threat to him. Further he admitted that he did not obtain the signature of the first petitioner in the Gift Deed-Ex.D2 and there is no income from the property under Ex.D3 to the petitioner. He also admitted that he did not pay any amount towards maintenance to the petitioners since 2008. The Gift Deed was executed reserving life interest in favour of the respondent.

Thus the respondent raised new plea of life threat for the first time in the cross examination. It is evident that he is not willing to take back the petitioners and he is trying to avoid them by creating one ground or the other. Therefore, it is very clear that respondent wilfully neglected the petitioners, harassed them and driven them out of the house.

17.Rw2 and Rw3 who are no other than wife and husband, have not deposed anything about nature of disputes between the parties, but only made an omnibus statement that the respondent tried to bring back the petitioners, but it was not materialized. Even the evidence of Rw2 and Rw3 is not corroborative in nature as Rw3 deposed for the first time that when the respondent went to the house of the petitioners to bring back them, the parents of the first petitioner assaulted the respondent and the first petitioner refused to join him, which facts were not deposed by Rw2. Thus the evidence of Pw2 and Rw3 is not helpful to the case of the respondent and merely because they are neighbours they came to the Court at the instance of the respondent.

10

18.Rw4, one of the attestor to Ex.D1-Settlement Deed deposed that he gave evidence in the police case filed by the first petitioner against the respondent as Pw5. He deposed about the disputes arose between the parties as the first petitioner did not cook fish curry to the respondent. The respondent pushed the first petitioner for not cooking the food. The respondent never harassed the first petitioner for the sake of dowry and the first petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent. He acted as one of the mediators and the attestor to Ex.D1-Settlement Deed. Therefore,

Rw4 has come forward with a new silly and vexatious ground between the parties and that itself proves the veracity of the evidence of Rw4 and that he is a partisan witness to the respondent.

In the cross examination, Rw4 admitted that he knows the respondent for the past 35 years and perhaps with that acquaintance he came to the Court and gave evidence. Therefore, the evidence of Rw2 to Rw4 is not helpful to the case of respondent to substantiate any one of the defences raised by him.

19.Coming to the means of the parties and requirements of the maintenance, admittedly the respondent availed voluntary retirement as a Lineman from the Electricity Department and Ex.P7 which was obtained under Right to Information Act issued by the

Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L(Operation), Eluru discloses that the respondent got terminal benefits to a tune of Rs.

11,16,514-00 and he retired on 30.9.09 as Lineman and he is receiving monthly pension of Rs.13,697/- and the drawing bank account number was also mentioned in it. And in order to disprove the same no rebuttal evidence is produced by the respondent and therefore it can be said without any doubt and hesitation that the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners and wilfully neglected to maintain the petitioners. Merely because the first petitioner being a Tailor earning few funds for their survival to avoid starvation that alone is not a ground to decline to grant maintenance and that cannot be constituted as sufficient means to the petitioners to maintain themselves. The respondent has not produced any kind of evidence to show that he is spending 11

Rs.8,000/- per month for his ailments. Merely because the first petitioner got site of 121 square yards under Ex.D3 from her father that alone is not a ground to refuse to grant maintenance as Rw1 admitted in his cross examination that there is no income from the property under Ex.D3 site. Thus, considering the financial status of the respondent, the age and status of the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.3,000/- per month to the first petitioner and

Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner is just and reasonable maintenance payable by the respondent.

20.The learned counsel for the respondent relied on decision reported in “BHEEKHA RAM Vs GOMA DEVI 1999 STPL (LE-

Crim) 3398 RAJ” and contended that when the first petitioner failed to establish that she was not neglected by the respondent and since she is living with her parents on her own accord, she is not entitled maintenance allowance for herself. In the case on hand, the first petitioner established that she was wilfully neglected by the respondent, harassed her and driven her out of the house and that she is justified in living with her parents and claim maintenance.

Therefore, the facts of the present case are quite different than that of the case relied on by the respondent and it is not helpful to the case of the respondent. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is inevitable to answer the point in favour of the petitioners and as against the respondent, as the petitioners have established all the three essential ingredients of the Section 125 CrPC, to claim maintenance from the respondent.

21.RESULT:

In the result, M.C No. 171/08 is allowed with costs of

Rs.2,000/-, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner from the date of filing of the petition and the respondent is directed to pay the same on or before 5th of every succeeding month, failing which the petitioners are at liberty to recover the same by due process of law. The arrears accrued from the date of filing of the petition till 12 the date of orders shall be payable by the respondent within four months from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of June, 2012.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADJ,VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Pw1: D. PadmavathiRw1: D.Venkateswara Rao Pw2: K.Babi SarojiniRw2: T.Mariyanna Pw3: Ch.NageswarammaRw3: T.Nagamani Pw4: K.Lakshmi NiranjaniRw4: J.Appalanarasamma Pw5: M.Suryanarayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Photo Ex.A2: Photocopy of the Household Card Ex.A3: Office Copy of the Legal Notice Ex.A4: Reply Notice Ex.A5: Rejoinder Notice to Ex.P4 Ex.A6: Postal Receipt Ex.A7: Alleged Salary Certificate of the Respondent Ex.A8: Representation

For Respondent:

Ex.D1: Agreement between Pw1 and RW1 Ex.D2: CC of Gift Deed dt 5.2.2010 in favour of 2nd petitioner Ex.D3: CC of Gift Deed dt 13.3.03 in favour of the Pw1.

Judge, F.C-cum-

IV ADJ,VJA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Mr M.V. Ramesh, B.Com., LL.M., PGDVS.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of June, 2012.

M.C.No.40/2008.

1. Putti Nirmala.

2. Putti Bhargav Srinivas. …Petitioner.

3. Putti Divya.

Vs.

Putti Naga Mohan. …Respondent.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.S. Sai Leela, Advocate for petitioners and Sri S. Sivarama Prasad, Advocate for respondent and that the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDERS:

RELIEF PRAYED FOR:

This maintenance case filed by the petitioners-wife and two children against the respondent-husband U/s.125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to first petitioner and

Rs.1500/- per month each to the petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition and to award costs of the petition.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS.

It is averred that the marriage between first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.10.1999 at Devarakonda

Naganna gari Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimeswara Swam Vari

Devasthanam, Gudivada as per Hindu rites and customs. Soon after 2 the marriage first petitioner joined the respondent and their marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock first petitioner blessed with the second and third petitioners, now they are under the custody of first petitioner. At the time of marriage the parents of first petitioner gave Ac.1-00 land, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 6 sov., of gold towards dowry and the same were entrusted to the respondent.

The father of first petitioner died in an accident about 20 years ago and she was brought up by her mother and brothers and performed her marriage with the respondent. The respondent looked after the first petitioner for a period of two years with love and affection.

3. It is further averred that the respondent is an auto driver and he used to drive auto on rent basis. The respondent addicted to vices and he used to come to home in late nights in a drunken state of mind and used to demand the first petitioner to get additional amounts from her parents for purchase of an Auto. The respondent used to beat the first petitioner without any justifiable reason or excuse. The first petitioner informed the harassment and torture meted out in the hands of the respondent to her mother and elder brother and that the brother of first petitioner Goriparthi Basava

Sastrulu gave Rs.30,000/- to the respondent. After receipt of said amount the respondent did not mend his attitude and behaviour and continued to harass the petitioner physically and mentally. Unable to bear the torture, the first petitioner went to her parent’s house and taking shelter. The elders and neighbours intervened and pacified the matter and warned the respondent to stop his indifferent behaviour towards the petitioners and send the first petitioner with the respondent to his house.

3

4. It is further averred that on 2.11.2007 the respondent came to the house in a drunken state of mind abused and beat the first petitioner and harassed her both physically and mentally.

Having apprehension of danger first petitioner gave a report to

Vuyyuru Police, police called the respondent for counseling where the respondent assured before the police that he will take the petitioner into his fold and look after her with love and affection but the respondent did not turn up to keep up his words. The respondent did not show any interest to lead marital life and openly proclaimed that he will contract another marriage. Again the first petitioner gave a report to Vuyyuru Police, the same was registered as FIR in Cr.No.4/2008 U/s.498-A IPC.

5. It is further averred that the respondent is having own Auto and getting Rs.7,000/- per month, apart from it he also owned

Ac.2.00 of agricultural land and getting Rs.60,000/- per annum. The respondent is also having joint agricultural land Ac.5-00 cents and getting considerable income and that the respondent is having sufficient means and capacity to maintain the petitioners but he willfully neglected to maintain the petitioners, which is his legal obligation. The first petitioner is not having any properties in her name and not getting any income from any source and she is suffering from convulsions due to the brutal and barbarous beating of the respondent. The first petitioner needs Rs.2,000/- per month for her food and Rs.1,000/- for her medical care. The minor petitioners now aged 7 years and 6 years respectively and they are to be admitted in school for that they require school fees, food and clothing. Therefore, the petitioners pray the Hon’ble Court to grant maintenance.

4

6. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-HUSBAND:

The sole respondent filed counter denying all the averments of the petition while admitting the marriage solemnized between the parties on 23.10.99 and that out their wedlock they were blessed with second and third petitioners. Further the respondent stated that at the time of marriage the mother and brothers of first petitioner gave Rs.80,000/- only and the father of respondent transferred Ac.0-50 cents of wet land in the name of respondent as per wish of the first petitioner and her family. Except the said amount of Rs.80,000/- no other property or ornaments were given to the respondent as dowry. During their marital life on the instigation of mother and brothers of the first petitioner, the first petitioner used to pick up quarrels with the respondent and his parents very often without any reasons. In the month of July, 2007 the father of respondent also gifted Ac.1-60 cents of wet land to the respondent, then the first petitioner and her brothers demanded to transfer the said land to his minor children for which the respondent refused.

Thereupon the attitude of first petitioner totally changed and she used to quarrel with the respondent and his parents without any reason. The respondent requested the first petitioner to change her attitude but there is no change in the attitude of first petitioner. In the month of October, 2007 the first petitioner left the matrimonial home along with her children without informing the respondent and joined at her brother’s house. The respondent himself went to the house of the brother of first petitioner, but they did not allow him to talk and started insisting him that his father and himself should first transfer Ac.1-60 cents of land in the names of minor petitioners and after that only they will talk. Subsequently the first petitioner and 5 her brothers demanded the respondent to shift his family either to

Saipuram or Vuyyuru or else she will not join him.

7. The respondent further averred that he along with his father and elders Angadala Srinivasa Rao, Merugumala Jhansi approached the first petitioner, her mother and brothers but their attempts to convince them failed, then first petitioner on the instigation of her family members gave a report to police U/s.498-A IPC. In the year, 2002 the brother of the first petitioner, by name, Goriparti Basava

Sastrulu came to his house and requested him that he needs

Rs.30,000/- urgently for his electrical Engineer course and that the respondent raised a loan by mortgaging his lands, subsequently he did not return the said amount.

8. The respondent further averred that he used to work as a clerk in one Sneha Egg Company, Gudivada and his duty was to take

Egg trays from Gudivada to Challapalli and getting Rs.2,000/- per month. Apart from it, he is getting only Rs.14,000/- per annum on agriculture and he has no other source of income. The first petitioner is a milk vendor and sells milk to other vendors by collecting the same in Saipuram Village and getting Rs.5,000/- per month. So the first petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain herself and the petitioners 2 and 3. It is further pleaded that the respondent never neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners and therefore, petitioners are not entitled for any maintenance and he prays the Court to dismiss the petition and directing the first petitioner to join the respondent along with petitioners 2 and 3 for leading marital life.

6

9. On behalf of the petitioners, first petitioner herself has been examined as P.w.1 and no document marked. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent himself has been examined as R.w.1 and no documents marked.

10. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief of maintenance as sought for against the respondent U/s.125

Cr.P.C. ?

11.POINT:

P.w.1, who is no other than the first petitioner herein, deposed corroborating the averments of the petitioner and further stated that the respondent started harassment demanding her to bring more amounts from her parents on the pretext that the amount given to him is very meagr and he requires money to purchase an Auto. In the year, 2007 the respondent abused her, assaulted her and necked out her from the house and so she gave a report to police. The respondent is getting income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from the lands and he sold out his house property. The respondent is also earning Rs.7,000/- per month as he is running an Auto. P.w.1 has no sufficient means to maintain herself and both the second and third petitioners have been prosecuting their studies.

12. P.w.2, who is no other than the paternal uncle of first petitioner, deposed corroborating the evidence of the P.w.1 and averments of the petition. P.w.2 further stated that his elder brother, who is father of first petitioner, died in a road accident about 20 years ago and ever since he is taking care and welfare of the children of his elder brother. P.w.1 further stated that the 7 respondent addicted to vices and started demanding for additional amounts after two years of the marriage. On the information given by first petitioner, P.w.2 and others tried to settle the matter and gave Rs.30,000/- through her brother. Even after receiving the said amount he did not mend his ways and harassed the P.w.1. So the petitioner gave a report to Vuyyuru Police and even after that report also he tried to mediate the matter but the respondent failed to evince any interest and openly proclaimed that he will go for another marriage and challenged the first petitioner.

13. On the other hand, R.w.1 who is no other the sole respondent herein, deposed corroborating the averments of the counter and stated that first petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain herself and petitioners 2 and 3.

14. Before dealing with the rival contentions and evidence produced, let us took to the admitted facts.

15Admitted Facts:

The matrimonial relationship between first petitioner and respondent is not in dispute and that their marriage was solemnized on 23.10.99 as per Hindu rites and customs and during their wedlock they were blessed with petitioners 2 and 3 on 18.3.2001 and 20.10.2002, who are now under the care and custody of first petitioner. At the time of marriage the mother and brothers of first petitioner gave her an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards

Pasupukumkuma. On the report given by the first petitioner to the S.H.O. on 22.1.2008 a case in Cr.No.4/2008 U/s.498-A IPC was registered against the respondent and it is pending.

16. The main defence raised by the respondent is that the father of respondent gifted Ac.1-60 cents of wet land in favour of 8 respondent in the month of July, 2007 and that the first petitioner demanded the respondent to transfer the said piece of land in favour of the minor petitioners 2 and 3 at the instance of 1st petitioner’s brother and in this connection the first petitioner used to raise quarrel raising voice against the respondent and his parents. Since the respondent failed to meet the demand made by the first petitioner in the month of October, 2007 she left the house along with her children without informing to the respondent and she joined her brother at Saipuram. On the other hand, right from the beginning it is the constant and consistent case of the petitioner that the respondent started harassing her demanding more amounts from her parents on order to purchase an Auto and that the amounts given bys the parents of first petitioner is very meagre. In this connection in the year, 2007 the respondent abused the first petitioner, abused her and necked her out of the house. From the cross examination of P.w.1 virtually nothing was elicited to discredit her testimony or to prove that she made any demands to transfer the said piece of land in favour of minor children at the instance of her parents. No ordinary reasonable prudent woman would demand for transfer of such property in favour of the minor children as the very property was gifted to her husband. Therefore, the defense raised by the respondent that thefirst petitioner voluntarily left the company of the respondent in the month of October, 2007 does not deserve for any consideration.

17. P.w.2, who is no other than the paternal uncle of first petitioner also deposed corroborating the evidence of P.w.1 and categorically stated that the respondent having addicted to vices, started harassing the first petitioner demanding additional amounts.

9

Further virtually from the cross examination of P.w.2 also nothing was also elicited to discredit his testimony or to prove that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of P.w.1. Merely because P.w.2 is relative of first petitioner that alone is not a ground to discredit his evidence. Further P.w.2 also deposed that in connection with illegal demands made by the respondent mediations were held to settle the matter and ultimately they gave Rs.30,000/- to the respondent.

From the cross examination of P.w.2 it was elicited that the respondent and his father came to the village for compromise. Thus the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite natural and trustworthy in nature to prove that the respondent without any reasonable cause neglected to maintain the petitioners and driven them out as they failed to meet the illegal demands of the respondent.

18. Further in this case from the cross examination of R.w.1 it was elicited and respondent admitted in categorical terms that the so called land of Ac.1-60 cents gifted to the respondent was cancelled by their parents on the pretext that the respondent failed to provide maintenance to them. In such a case it is for the respondent to prove when the gift was made, when it was cancelled what is the registered document that was executed and so on and so forth particulars but the respondent failed to produce any kind of positive evidence in this regard. If really the gift deed was cancelled the question of first petitioner demanding the respondent to transfer the said land in favour of minor children, does not arise at all and as such the defense of voluntary desertion set up by the respondent is not true and correct.

19. On the other hand, a new plea has been raised by the respondent stating that in the year, 2002 he gave a sum of 10

Rs.30,000/- to the brother of first petitioner by name G. Basava

Sastrulu for prosecuting his Electrical Engineering course and that he raised loan in this regard on the strength of Ac.1-00 of land standing in his name but the said allegation is not supported by any document. If really any such arrangement was made by the respondent that to after raising a loan on the strength of Ac.1-00 of land, certainly the respondent should have been in a position to produce evidence and therefore, failing to file any piece of document, in this regard itself falsify the very allegation. Further if at all the first petitioner left the company of respondent voluntarily nothing is prevented by the respondent to give a notice to the first petitioner to join him but no such notice was issued right from the

October, 2007. Thus viewed from any angle I find no merits and grounds in the defense raised by the respondent.

20. Coming to the quantum of maintenance to be awarded, according to petitioners the respondent owned Ac.5-00 of wet land, apart from house property and he is earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from the lands. The respondent is also running an Auto and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. On the other hand, the petitioners have no sufficient means to maintain themselves and they are badly in need of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance. Further at the time of marriage the parents of first petitioner gave Ac.1-00 of land and cash worth of Rs.1,00,000/- apart from three gold rings towards dowry. Perhaps Ac.1-00 of land that was referred to by the respondent for raising loan of Rs.30,000/- is same land that was gifted by the parents of first petitioner to the respondent. There is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent to prove that he is only clerk in Sneha Egg Company, Gudivada and that he is earning 11

Rs.2,000/- towards salary and that he was removed from the services and therefore the said plea is not correct one. Therefore, it remains that the respondent is running an Auto and earning sufficient income of Rs.7,000/- per month as rightly urged by the first petitioner. Apart from that the respondent submitted that he is receiving Rs.14,000/- per annum on the agriculture, whereas according to the petitioners it is Rs.1,00,000/-. Even to prove that the respondent’s only income is Rs.14,000/- per annum no details or accounts are filed by the respondent. Merely because the first petitioner’s father has got some land and source of income that alone is not sufficient to say that the petitioners have got means to maintain themselves. Even there is no specific denial by the respondent that he has not sold out any property and that he does not own any house property. Further the respondent also admitted that the parents of first petitioner gave Rs.80,000/- towards ‘Pasupukumkuma’ at the time of marriage and requested the father of respondent to purchase some property in the name of first petitioner and respondent. Thus it can be safely concluded that the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but neglected to maintain them and that the respondent is not only having lands but also owns house property yielding income, apart from earning sufficient income as an Auto owner, perhaps working in

Sneha Egg Company, Gudivada and operating the Auto for taking eggs and unloading the stock. Insofar as the quantum of maintenance claimed by the first petitioner is concerned claiming

Rs.3,000/- per month is on high side and it can be restricted to

Rs.2,000/- per month. The quantum of maintenance sought for by 12 the petitioners 2 and 3 is just and reasonable one. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of petitioners.

21.RESULT:

In the result, the M.C. is allowed with costs;

1.directing the respondent to pay maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.1,500/- per month to each of the petitioners 2 and 3 towards maintenance on or

before 5th of every succeeding month;

2.that the respondent is directed to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the petition ie., 5.3.2008 and arrears accrued till disposal of the M.C. shall be paid within four months from the date of passing of this orders; and

3.that the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the M.C.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of June, 2012.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT :

P.w.1: P. Nirmala. R.w.1: Putti Naga Mohan. P.w.2: G. Subrahmanyeswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

….NIL….

13

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Mr M.V. Ramesh, B.Com., LL.M., PGDVS.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 21st day of June, 2012.

O.P.No.817/2009.

Kurapati Rupesh Kumar. …Petitioner.

Vs.

Kurapati Sushma @ Mikkili Indira …Respondent. Priyadarshini.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Babu Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri P. Mohana Rao, Advocate for respondent and that the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDERS:

RELIEF PRAYED FOR:

This is an O.P. filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act (for short ‘the

Act’) seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized between them on 4.5.1998 on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

2.CASE OF THE PETITIONER-HUSBAND:

It is averred that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 4.5.1998 as per the Christian rites and customs at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. Out of the wedlock, two daughters were born. No presentations were taken from the respondent and her parents to the petitioner at the time of the marriage. The petitioner put up family at E.C.I.L. Cross Road, 2

Hyderabad and stayed there for two years and during that period the petitioner got training in Hardware in Computers. Again the petitioner shifted the family to Guntur and stayed there for two years. All these years the respondent has accustomed and habituated to lead luxurious life and there by the respondent used to demand the petitioner to bring costly sarees and household articles, which is beyond the financial status of the petitioner. The respondent has been harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally. The respondent also used to go to her parents house at

Vijayawada without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and she used to express many times that she has no interest to lead marital life. The petitioner advised the respondent to mend the ways and views, but the respondent paid deaf ear and she used to insult, ill-treat and assault the petitioner. In the month of September, 2003 the respondent went to the house of her brother in law, by name

Venu, at Marturu, then she bluntly refused to join the petitioner and the said Venu also beat the petitioner, abused him in filthy language and also threatened the petitioner to kill him. Subsequently on the intervention of elders the respondent joined the petitioner at Guntur.

The elder sister of the respondent and her husband Venu shifted their family to Guntur near to the house of the petitioner and they frequently interfered with the petitioner and supporting the respondent’s behaviour. Then the respondent went to her parent’s house by taking all the valuables belonging to the petitioner without knowledge and consent of the petitioner. Thus the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner forgetting the marital tie by discarding the marital life with the petitioner. The respondent has developed illegal contacts with the said Venu and continuing the same. The petitioner filed O.P.177/2009 before this Court against 3 the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In the month of April, 2009 the respondent went away with the said Venu by leaving two daughters at her parent’s house and leading adulterous life. Thus the respondent voluntarily and wantonly deserted the petitioner wilfully forgetting the marital tie between them by discarding the marital life with the petitioner. Hence the petitioner prays the Court to dissolve his marriage with the respondent.

3. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-WIFE:

The sole respondent filed counter denying all the averments of the petition while admitting the marriage solemnized between the parties on 4.5.1998 and out of their wedlock they were blessed with two daughters and that the OP is not maintainable in law. At the time of marriage or subsequently presentations were taken from the respondent and her parents by the petitioner on demand. It is further averred that her brother in law by name Venu never involved in the matrimonial norms between the parties. In the month of

September, 2003 the respondent never visited the house of said

Venu. The said Venu never shifted his family to Guntur near to the house of the petitioner and never interfered with the petitioner’s family matters. The petitioner himself voluntarily deserted the respondent and filed OP.No.177/08 with false allegations and during pendency of the said OP, the petitioner filed this petition for divorce and it shows the falsity and attitude of the petitioner against the respondent. The respondent is not having any illicit intimacy with the said Venu. The petitioner is cruel and sadist and cheating nature and prepared to kill the respondent at any point of time. Moreover the petitioner addicted to vices and he is the lazy person and he is enjoying the family income for his selfishness.

4

4. It is further averred that the petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent and her children and not provided any maintenance to them. The respondent requested the petitioner to provide maintenance to them, but he refused to provide any maintenance to the respondent and her children. Hence the respondent prays the

Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent,

R.W.s.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were got marked.

6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following point arises for determination.

7.POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether the marriage solemnized between parties on 4.5.1998 is liable to be dissolved U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the

Divorce Act ?

8.POINT:

P.w.1, who is no other than the petitioner-husband herein, deposed corroborating the averments of the petition and relied on

Ex.A.1 to A.3 in support of the pleas. P.w.2-T. Kiranji, who is no other than the brother of the respondent deposed corroborating the evidence of P.w.1 on all material aspects and reiterated that the respondent has accustomed and habituated to lead luxurious life and there by the respondent used to command the petitioner to bring costly ornaments and furniture, which is beyond the financial status of the petitioner. The respondent has been harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally. The respondent paid deaf ear to the advises given by his family members and respondent used to visit 5 her parent’s house at Vijayawada without consent and knowledge of the petitioner.

9. P.w.2 further deposed that in the month of September, 2003 the respondent went to the house of her brother in law, by name, Venu at Marturu, Guntur District, who is the husband of

P.w.2’s elder sister and the respondent never turned up. When the petitioner questioned the respondent, the respondent refused to come back and the said Venu beat the petitioner and abused him in filthy language. The said Venu shifted the family to Guntur near to the house of the petitioner and used to interfere with the family matters of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner to kill. In the month of February, 2007 the respondent came to her parents house by taking all the valuables belonging to the petitioner without knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and subsequently developed illicit intimacy with her brother in law by name Venu. At the instigation of Venu the respondent has taken a separate house at Prasadampadu and living with the Venu without caring her parents or anybody. Finally in the month of April, 2009 the respondent went away with the Venu by leaving two daughters at her parents house and leading adulterous life with the said Venu.

10. On the other hand R.w.1, who is no other than the respondent herein, deposed corroborating the averments of the counter. From the cross examination of R.w.1 some more beneficial points have been elicited, which are amply supporting and substantiating the case of the petitioner. She mad lot of improvements and deposed various facts which are not found in the counter by stating that the petitioner is wealthy person, having house properties and lands yielding considerable income. Of course 6 for deciding the point in issue the said facts are not necessary.

R.w.1 admitted in the cross examination that their marriage was performed with the expenses of the petitioner and without any presentations like cash or gold given by the parents of respondent, which is supporting the plea of petitioner. Further at the time of marriage the relationship between family members of both parties was cordial and continued even after the death of her father. The father of the petitioner is a respectable person, who is practicing

Doctor at Chilakaluripet. Further R.w.1 admitted that although she filed reports and complaints before Machavaram and Patamata

Police Stations against the petitioner, the police after due enquiries have not registered the cases. Both the children of parties have been under the care and custody of mother of respondent and they are providing education to the children.

11. In this case the main defence raised by the respondent is that the petitioner ill-treated her both physically and mentally having addicted to vices like drinking alcohol, debauchery and neglected the respondent without any justifiable cause. In view of the admissions made by the respondent in her cross examination about non registration of cases the so called ill-treatment made by the petitioner against the respondent cannot be taken into consideration and that the said defence is only a paper defence it is only and only just to face the O.P. Further R.w.1 admitted that she did not give any private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishableU/s.498-A IPC.

12. On the other hand, it is the constant and consistent case of the petitioner that the respondent having developed illicit intimacy with her brother in law and started residing with him forgetting the marital tie with the petitioner and welfare of her two 7 children by leaving them at her mother’s house. On account of this illegal affair the said Venu obtained divorce from his wife ie., elder sister of respondent. The divorce between Venu and his wife is not in dispute and if at all the respondent intends to disprove the serious allegations levelled against her, the only alternative is to examine

Venu and her elder sister, who is the wife of Venu and in the absence of their positive evidence it is very difficult to accede to the contentions raised by the respondent.

13. In this case virtually nothing was elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and in fact the petitioner made all his efforts and endeavour for reunion and in this contest he filed O.P.

against the respondent seeking the restitution of conjugal rights.

Merely because, the petitioner is wealthy person that alone is not a ground to say that the petitioner addicted to vices like drinking alcohol and debauchery. Further merely because the petitioner has not filed any case against the respondent and Venu for committing adultery even that alone is not a ground to discredit the material allegations leveled by the petitioner against the respondent.

Absolutely P.w.2, who is no other than the brother of the respondent, has no enmity to depose against the respondent, who is his younger sister and P.w.2’s evidence is completely supporting the evidence of petitioner and that the evidence of P.w.2 is quite natural, reliable and trustworthy in nature. P.w.2 is a respectable employee, working as Senior Assistant in A.P. Tansco and younger brother of the respondent. Further he fairly deposed in the cross examination that he is not in talking terms with the respondent since the date of disputes between the parties. Further P.w.2 deposed in the cross examination that he is interested for reunion of the parties but since the petitioner decided to dissolve the marriage on account of illicit 8 intimacy between Venu and the respondent he gave evidence supporting the case of the petitioner. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is sufficient to constitute the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage.

14. Adding to the above facts and circumstances, R.w.2, who is no other than the Auto driver and independent witness, deposed that he is running Auto service for carrying school children and he is residing by the side lane of both the parties. He knows both parties and their two children are studying in St. John’s School,

Gunadala and they engaged his Auto for carrying their children every day morning to school and he is dropping them in the evening.

Thereafter disputes arose between the parties on petty things as the petitioner used to consume alcohol and harassed the respondent.

The petitioner never paid the Auto charges. He also deposed that the petitioner did not like his words and did not change his attitude.

15. In this case in the cross examination, R.w.2 deposed that he is running Auto for the past 10 years and that the petitioner himself engaged his Auto for carrying the children to the school.

Since October, 2009 till to day he is taking the children of the parties except for one year ie., October, 2010 to 2011. P.w.2 also admitted in categorical terms that since 2009 the children are in the custody of their grand mother ie., mother of the respondent and maternal uncle. Even Auto fares are also being paid by their grandmother and these facts are also supporting the case of the petitioner that the respondent disowned the marital tie with the petitioner and left her children in her mother house deserted the petitioner and caused mental agony to the petitioner and started living with her brother in law Venu and thus the petition filed by the petitioner is fit to be 9 allowed on both the grounds urged by the petitioner. If really the respondent has not deserted the petitioner voluntarily nor subjected him to cruelty and if had she been driven out by the petitioner, she would have been at least living with her two children in her mother’s house and ought to have made some attempts and endeavour to file a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, I find sufficient grounds in the petition. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondent.

16.RESULT:

In the result, the O.P.817/2009 is allowed U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act dissolving the marriage solemnized on 4.5.1998 between the petitioner and respondent.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of June, 2012.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT :

P.w.1: K. Rupesh Kumar. R.w.1: K. Sushma. P.w.2: T. Kiranji. R.w.2: P.S.N. Durga Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

Ex.A.1: Copy of petition in OIP.177/08. …NIL… Ex.A.2: Copy of marriage Certificate. Ex.A.3: Photo copy of photo.

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

10

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Mr M.V. Ramesh, B.Com., LL.M., PGDVS.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 21st day of June, 2012.

O.P.No.817/2009.

Kurapati Rupesh Kumar, S/o. late Dr Rajaratnam, Christian, 34 years,Chilakaluripet, now residisng at D.No.7-91/1, C/o. Dr K. Ankaiah, Pala Bazar, … Petitioner. Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

Vs.

Kurapati Sushma @ Mikkili Indira Priyadarshini, W/o. K. Rupesh Kumar, D/o. late T. Deva Prasad, Hindu, 28 years, R/o. C/o. Rajani, D.No.6-146/1, … Respondent. near Sindu Apartment, Dunnapothula Satyam Road, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent by granting decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty.

T This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Babu Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri P. Mohana Rao, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order and

D E C R E E:

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and ii)that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 4.5.1998 is hereby dissolved U/s.10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 21st day of June, 2012.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Mr M.V. Ramesh, B.Com., LL.M., PGDVS.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of May, 2012.

O.P.730/2010.

Gorijala Jyothi @ Chepakam Jyothi. …Petitioner.

Vs.

Goirijala Srinivasa Rao. …Respondent.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri P. Paul, Advocate for respondent and that the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDERS:

RELIEF PRAYED FOR:

This is an O.P. filed by the petitioner-wife U/s.13 (1) (ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 4.6.2009 on the ground of cruelty.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER-WIFE.

It is averred that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 4.6.2009 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vykunthapuram,

Tenali as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated immediately and n o children were born out of the wedlock. The parents of petitioner presented an amount of 2

Rs.2,00,000/- cash, gold ornaments worth of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

Pasupukumkuma and Rs.50,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams.

The present house where her parents are living is in the name of her mother. From the beginning the respondent and his parents started pressuring the petitioner to get it transferred in the respondent’s name which caused her much mental agony.

3. The petitioner further averred that within three days of her stay with the respondent at his house, she observed and understood that there is no love and affection among them, they always quarrel among themselves for money and other things by using filthy language. On 8.6.2009 the petitioner asked her mother in law for gold ornaments and shocked to hear the reply of the respondent and his parents that they pledged the ornaments of petitioner for their personal use and they threatened her with dire consequences if she reveals the same to her parents. After spending some time with her in Guntuaplli the respondent left for Punjub in July, 2009, as her parents refused to transfer their house in his name the respondent bluntly refused to take the petitioner for Kapuram, once again the petitioner fell in deep shock. Subsequently she came to know that the respondent’s brother involved in a murder case at Narsaraopet and that the respondent came to Guntur in January, 2010 and after obtaining bail to his brother the respondent left for Assam in

February, 2010 without any intimation to the petitioner. The acts and conduct of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent deteriorated to such an extent and it has become impossible for them to live together.

3

4. It is further averred that the respondent and his parents showed a document to them stating that he had a house in his name at Guntur, later the petitioner came to know that the house property was got transferred fraudulently in the name of respondent on 28.2.2008 from his senior paternal uncle and the same was cancelled on 1.2.2010. On 10.4.2010 some unknown persons came to the house of the parents of petitioner in a drunken state at the instigation of respondent and his parents and threatened them for registration of house property in the name of the respondent.

Unable to bear the mental harassment and the illegal demands for house property the petitioner gave a complaint before the S.H.O.,

Ibrahimpatnam Police, the same was registered as FIR in

Cr.No.189/2010 U/s 498-A and 420 IPC.

5. It is further averred that the respondent got issued a registered legal notice dt.7.5.2010 with all false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner inviting her for “Kapuram” (conjugal life). The respondent married the petitioner only for the same of money and property. The respondent and his parents after taking away the entire gold ornaments and cash from the petitioner, did not take her for kapuram, but illegally demanded for immovable property and they cheated the petitioner and her parents and ruined her life. There is no safety and security to her life in the hands of respondent. The petitioner is not in a position to go out and earn for her livelihood and she has no means and capacity to maintain herself and she issued a registered legal notice dt.19.5.2010 to the respondent demanding him for maintenance and for return of gold ornaments, but the respondent failed to do so. Hence she filed application in MC.141/2010 before this Court for maintenance.

4

6. It is further averred that the respondent filed a petition in

OP.113/2010 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Tenali for

restitution of conjugal rights. The marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent has been irretrievably broken down under the above circumstances and there are no chances for their reunion.

Hence the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

7. CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-HUSBAND:

The respondent filed counter denying all the averments of the petition while admitting the marriage solemnized between the parties on 4.6.2009. The respondent and his parents never demanded for any amounts or gold ornaments from the parents of petitioner. The respondent himself presented told ornaments to the petitioner at the time of marriage. The marriage was consummated.

After the marriage the petitioner joined the respondent at his parent’s house and they lived happily only short period of days. After the nuptial function the respondent went to Punjab to attend his job on 21.7.2009. On 22.7.2009 the petitioner intentionally without any cause went to her parent’s house along with her gold ornaments and also her belongings and since then she has been residing there with her parents. In the month of October, 2009 after the allotment of residential quarter to the respondent, he informed the petitioner to come and join with him at Punjab to lead marital life but the petitioner refused to join him. Subsequently the respondent transferred to Assam State at that time also the petitioner refused to join him. In the month of January, 2010 the respondent came to

Guntur on leave and went to his in laws house and requested the petitioner to come with him to lead marital life but the petitioner 5 vehemently denied to have any conjugal relationship with the respondent. Later in the month of February, 2010 also the respondent came to Guntur and approached the petitioner and requested her to come with him to lead marital life, but the petitioner refused to join him. The respondent tried his level best personally and through mediators by name, Sravan Kumar, but his efforts ended in futile.

8. It is further averred that the petitioner foisted a false case against the respondent in Cr.No.189/2010 U/s.498-A and 420 IPC and police arrested the respondent and his parents on 22.4.2010 and after that they were released on bail. The respondent got issued a notice to the petitioner on 7.5.2010 requesting to join him and to lead conjugal life but she issued reply with all false allegations.

Therefore, the respondent filed HMOP.113/2010 on the file of Prl.

Senior Civil Judge, Tenali for restitution of conjugal rights and during

the pendency of said O.P. the present OP. was filed. The petitioner has not shown any valid and effective ground for granting divorce and therefore, prays the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

9. On behalf of the petitioner, P.w.1 was examined and

Ex.P.1 to P.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral and documentary evidence adduced.

10. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 4.6.2010

U/s.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu .Marriage Act ?

11.POINT:

6

P.w.1, who is no other than the petitioner herein, filed proof affidavit corroborating the averments of the petition and relied on Ex.P.1 to P.9 in support of her case. In this case there is no dispute as regards to the marriage between the parties on 4.6.2009 performed as per the Hindu rites and customs and that the marriage was also consummated. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent is in Indian Army Service working as Soldier and his services are subjected to travel through out the India and the respondent has to move from place to place, as rightly alleged by the respondent. In this case from the cross examination of P.w.1 it was elicited that the petitioner refused to join the society of respondent on the ground that she is apprehending danger to her life as the respondent threatening the petitioner continuously to transfer the house property standing in the name of her mother.

Further it also revealed that both parties shared the conjugal home intermittingly only for two months and thereafter both parties have been residing separately. Further it reveals from the evidence that

OP.527/11 on the file of this Court filed by the respondent U/s.9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act was also dismissed as not pressed, which indicates that the respondent filed the said O.P. only as a defense and not with a clear and clean intention to receive the petitioner into his conjugal home. Further from the pleadings it reveals without any doubt that the respondent and his parents have been pressurizing the petitioner to transfer the house property standing in the name of the mother of the petitioner and in this connection the respondent put the petitioner to ill-treatment and used to raise quarrel very frequently. It is also the constant case of the petitioner that the parents of petitioner are living in the said house. Therefore, it can 7 be said that the petitioner was subjected to sufficient cruelty by the respondent and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.

12. The evidence of P.w.1 almost remained unchallenged and in view of the categorical admissions elicited from the cross examination of P.w.1, I find sufficient grounds and reasons in the petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent. It is also not out of the place to be mentioned here that the respondent and his parents have been threatening for registration of the house property continuously and the petitioner not bearing with the mental harassment and illegal demands she gave a report to police against the respondent, which is the subject matter of Cr.No.189/2010

U/s.498-A and 420 IPC. Thus the petitioner lost hopes for happy marital life and petitioner has no other go except to file O.P. in order to safe guard herself and property of her parents. Last but not least is that the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of his counter and therefore, the counter filed by the respondent is not tenable and sustainable in law and accordingly it is over ruled. In the light of above discussion, it is inevitably to answer the point in favour of petitioner and as against the respondent.

13.RESULT:

The O.P.174/2011 is allowed and the marriage between the parties solemnized on 4.6.2009 is hereby dissolved U/s.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Dictated to P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 16th day of May, 2012.

8

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT :

P.w.1: Gorijala Jyothi.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

Ex.P.1: Wedding photo.…NIL… Ex.P.2: O/c. of legal notice issued by respondent. Ex.P.3: Copy of reply notice. Ex.P.4: copy of acknowledgment card. Ex.P.5: O/c. of legal notice, dt.19.5.2010. Ex.P.6: O/c. of legal notice dt.17.7.2010. Ex.P.7: copy of postal receipt. Ex.P.8: O/c. legal notice issued by respondent to Union of India. Ex.P.9: copies of three postal receipts.

Judge, F.C-cum-IV

ADJ,VJA.

9

IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE’S COURT AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Mr M.V. Ramesh, B.Com., LL.M., PGDVS.,

Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of May, 2012.

O.P.730/2010.

Gorijala Jyothi @ Chepakam Jyothi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, 25 years, Housewife, R/o. D.No.2-48, near Venugopal Swamy … Petitioner. Temple, Guntupalli Village.

Vs.

Gorijala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, Hindu, 27 years, R/o. D.No.3-29-54/9, Krishna Nagar, 1st Lane, Guntur. … Respondent.

The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent by granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri P. Paul, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order and

D E C R E E:

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and ii)that the marriage between petitioner and respondent held on 4.6.2009 be and the same is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce U/s.13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 16th day of May, 2012.

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

10