IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S
COURT AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: Sri U. Satyarao, B.Com., B.L.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
Monday, 27th day of April, 2015
O.P.No.603/2010 AND M.C.No.139/2008
OP No.603/2010:
(OP No.57/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT,
TANUKU)
Between:-
Pakirabad Vijaya Sankar, S/o Babji Rao, Hindu, 31 years, employee, R/o Attili village and Mandal, …Petitioner Tanuku JCJC
And
Pakirabad Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Vijaya Sankar, Hindu, 31 years, House wife, D/o Kovelakar Sai .Respondent Babu, Near 6th Battalion Police campus Gate, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
M.C.NO.139/2008:
Between:-
1. Pakirabad Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Vijaya Sankar, Hindu, 31 years, House wife, D/o Kovelakar Sai Babu, R/o Islampet, Panja Centre, Vijayawada -1
2. Pakirabad Surya Siddesh, S/o Vijaya Sankar, 6 years…Petitioners
3. Pakirabad Kusuma Chandana Drakshayani, 2 years
And
Pakirabad Vijaya Sankar, S/o Babji Rao, Hindu, 31 years, employee and properties, R/o Near Police .Respondent station, Attili village, Tanuku Taluq, W.G.District
These two petitions are coming on 10.4.2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.Rama Krishna Prasad, J.Ravi Babu, P.Krishna Mohan, Advocates, for the petitioner-husband and of Sri C.V.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate, for respondent-wife, and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:
2
ORDER
O.P.No.603/2010:
1. This petition was originally filed on the file of SCJ Court,
Tanuku and it was numbered as O.P.57/08 and later it was transferred to this court as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in
Transfer CMPMP NO.674/2008 in TRCMP NO.546/2008 dt:26.11.2008 and it was numbered as O.P.603/10 on the file of this court.
2. This is a petition filed U/s.13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage
Act for dissolution of marriage of petitioner and the respondent dated 18.5.2001 by granting decree of divorce.
3.The provenance of the case facts is the respondent was married to the petitioner on 18.5.2001 as per Hindu Rites and Custom at Mangalagiri. The respondent is no other than the petitioner’s maternal uncle’s daughter. There were misgivings in between the petitioner’s father and mother and also the petitioner’s father and the respondent’s father regarding performance of the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent’s father brought pressure on the petitioner’s father to perform the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent when the petitioner was aged 16 and the petitioner’s father proposed to perform the marriage of the petitioner on completing graduation of the petitioner. In that context the petitioner’s mother went to the respondent’s father’s house by taking the petitioner when he was doing 2nd year graduation. They stayed for 4 months. The engagement was done and later the marriage was performed on 18.5.2001.
4.The respondent expressed her unwillingness for the marriage by stating she wanted to marry an outsider rather than petitioner even as the engagement was done.
5.Nuptials was arranged on the even date of the marriage, during the 1st night the respondent gave a letter to the petitioner and 3 asked him to go through the letter. She demanded the petitioner to fulfill all the demands mentioned in the said letter and he should apologize her parents in the presence of all the relatives and guests and he should undertake that he should respect her parents and he should also undertake that he would not do anything which she does not like. She started quarreling with the petitioner and he spent sleepless night on that day.
6.The petitioner tried to persuade the respondent and he spent 15 days with her and there is a little change in her attitude.
7.Since Telugu month Aashadamasam is forthcoming, the petitioner’s mother told the petitioner to inform the same to the respondent’s parents and in that context she grew wild. The petitioner’s mother tried to cajole her by stating that it is a custom to send the newly married daughter in law to her parents house during
Aashadamasam. But the respondent was adamant.
8.The respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and his parents and she used to go outside the house and she used to weep on the roads even during midnight. The petitioner informed her conduct and attitude to her parents. The respondent’s brother came and took her to her parents house. He was briefed about the respondent’s attitude and her conduct by the petitioner. The respondent was again brought to the petitioner’s house situated at
Athili 10 days thereafter and she was accompanied by elders. She admitted her misbehavior in the presence of elders and assured that she would behave properly in the future.
9.While the respondent was carrying 6th month pregnancy, the matrimonial grandfather was expired at Tummapudi situated near
Mangalagiri. There was a bickering in between the petitioner’s parents and the respondent’s parents. At the funeral ceremony and in that context the respondent and her brother Rama Krishna attempted to 4 beat the petitioner’s parents. The elders intervened and rescued the petitioner’s parents.
10.After few days, the respondent’s father dropped the respondent at petitioner’s house assuring that she would behave properly in future. The respondent delivered a male child and again she was brought to petitioner’s house 5 moths after such delivery. The petitioner noticed no change in her attitude. She created a commotion by abusing the petitioner’s mother in filthy language on one day when the petitioner tried to convince her, she fled away from the house and reached P.S. The constable who was on sentry duty during night reprimanded her. She abused the petitioner and his mother in vulgar language and she attributed illicit intimacy in between the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner requested the father of the respondent to come and persuade the respondent. Accordingly he came there and he took away the respondent to his house and the respondent stayed there for 5 months. Again she was dropped at petitioner’s house and 2 months thereafter she gave a report to Athili police and in that context there was counseling in between the family members of both the parties and it was proposed to put up separate family else where and away from Athili and it was accepted by both the parties. The respondent also made a proposal that the petitioner should continuously reside at Tummapudi where her parents reside. The petitioner agreed for the said proposal.
11.Due to continuous absence of the petitioner, he sustained heavy loss in business. Then the petitioner’s father in law shifted the family from Tummapudi to Mangalgiri village. There was no change in the respondent’s behaviour even as the family was shifted to
Mangalgiri, she is more petulant. The petitioner paid monthly rent of
Rs.500/- for the house situated at Mangalgiri. He bore the entire 5 family expenditure when the family was put up at Mangalagiri as well as at Tummapudi.
12.The petitioner stayed at Rajahmundry while doing business there. But the respondent did not allow him to stay there.
She insisted him to stay at Athili.
13.She gave birth to a female child. Ever since the birth of the child, she suffers from ill health. The petitioner got her treated at
Anurag Multi Speciality hospital in Vijayawada. He spent Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. The respondent did not attend the child properly and she quarreled with the petitioner.
14.On 9.2.2008 the respondent behaved wildly and the petitioner could not resist her. On 21.5.2008 the respondent, her father accompanied by relatives came to Athili and threatened the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner could not tolerate the harassment perpetrated by the respondent. Hence the petition.
15.The respondent filed counter admitting the relationship as averred in the petition and resisting the maintainability of the petition.
Ever since the marriage the petitioner behaved adamantly and he harassed the respondent without any reason. Even before marriage, he openly proclaimed that he has no interest to marry the respondent and he consented for the marriage due to pressure given by grandfather and his father. He used to express if he married any other woman he would have been given dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. He further expressed that he married her due to his ill fate. The respondent bore the harassment with a hope that good sense would prevail on the petitioner, but in vain.
16.The petitioner used to visit Rajahmundry, Vijayawada and
Mangalagiri in connection with his business work and in his absence, his parents harassed the respondent by uttering that had their son married any other woman he would have been given dowry of 6
Rs.10,00,000/-. They started harassing her for additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/- and the petitioner joined them. When she expressed her inability, they abused her in filthy language.
17.The petitioner shifted family to Mangalgiri in the year 2004 and he was a commuter in between Mangalagiri and Athili. The parents of the petitioner harassed her by phoning her and by abusing her. The mater was, therefore, placed before the elders and as per the advice of the elders, the petitioner and the respondent put up separate family at Islampet, Vijayawada. The petitioner looked after her well for some time and again he started harassing her demanding additional dowry.
18.While so in the 1st week of May, the petitioner’s parents came and took him to Athili and later they phoned the respondent informing that they would perform another marriage to the petitioner.
Later she received notice issued by Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku in the present petition for dissolution of marriage. When she questioned the petitioner on receiving notice the petitioner replied in arrogant manner and stating that he would marry another woman after giving divorce to the respondent.
19.On 10.7.2008 at about 5 P.M the petitioner’s parents and one K.Sivaji Rao came to the respondent’s parents house situated at
Mangalagiri and threatened the respondent with dire consequences and demanded to give consent for divorce or pay Rs.5,00,000/- as
additional dowry. They beat the respondent. The respondent, therefore
gave report to Mangalagiri police and it was registered as crime no.169/08 against the petitioner and his parents.
20.The petitioner is doing leather business and he is earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. He is owning immovable properties.
21.The respondent’s health was deteriorated due to the marital disputes and she requires Rs.1000/- per month towards 7 medical expenses. She is not owning any property and she is under the patronage of her parents.
M.C.No.139/2008:
22.This petition was filed U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to make monthly allowance of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/-each to the petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition.
23.The provenance of the case facts, is the marriage of the 1st petitioner and respondent was performed on 18.5.2001 at
Mangalagiri as per Hindu rites. Ever since the marriage the respondent behaved adamantly and he harassed the 1st petitioner without any reason. Even before marriage, he openly proclaimed that he has no interest to marry the 1st petitioner and he consented for the marriage due to pressure given by grandfather and his father. He used to express if he married any other woman he would have been given dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. He further expressed that he married her due to his ill fate. The 1st petitioner bore the harassment with a hope that good sense would prevail on the respondent, but in vain.
24.The respondent used to visit Rajahmundry, Vijayawada and Mangalagiri in connection with his business work and in his absence, his parents harassed the 1st petitioner by uttering that had their son married any other woman he would have been given dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. They started harassing her for additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/- and the respondent joined them. When she expressed her inability, they abused her in filthy language.
25.The respondent shifted family to Mangalgiri in the year 2004 and he was a commuter in between Mangalagiri and Athili. The parents of the respondent harassed her by phoning her and by abusing her. The mater was, therefore, placed before the elders and as per the advice of the elders, the respondent and the 1st petitioner put up 8 separate family at Islampet, Vijayawada. The respondent looked after her well for some time and again he started harassing her demanding
additional dowry.
26.While so in the 1st week of May, the respondent’s parents came and took him to Athili and later they phoned the 1st petitioner informing that they would perform another marriage to the respondent. Later she received notice issued by Senior Civil Judge,
Tanuku in the present petition for dissolution of marriage. When she questioned the respondent on receiving notice the respondent replied in arrogant manner and stating that he would marry another woman after giving divorce to the 1st petitioner.
27.On 10.7.2008 at about 5 P.M the respondent’s parents and one K.Sivaji Rao came to the 1st petitioner’s parents house situated at Mangalagiri and threatened the 1st petitioner with dire consequences and demanded to give consent for divorce or pay
Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry. They beat the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner, therefore gave report to Mangalagiri police and it was registered as crime no.169/08 against the respondent and his parents.
28.The respondent is doing leather business and he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He is owning immovable properties.
29.The 1st petitioner’s health was deteriorated due to the marital disputes and she requires Rs.1000/- per month towards medical expenses. She is not owning any property and she is under the patronage of her parents.
30.The respondent filed counter admitting the marital relationship and birth of two children and denied all other material averments of the petition. The 1st petitioner is no other than the respondent’s maternal uncle’s daughter. There were misgivings in between the respondent’s father and mother and also the respondent’s father and the 1st petitioner’s father regarding performance of the 9 marriage of the 1st petitioner and the respondent. The 1st petitioner’s father brought pressure on the respondent’s father to perform the marriage of the respondent and the 1st petitioner when the 1st petitioner was aged 16 and the respondent’s father proposed to perform the marriage of the respondent on completing graduation of the respondent. In that context the respondent’s mother went to the 1st petitioner’s father’s house by taking the respondent when he was doing 2nd year graduation. They stayed for 4 months. The engagement was done and later the marriage was performed on 18.5.2001.
31.The 1st petitioner expressed her unwillingness for the marriage by stating she wanted to marry an outsider rather than respondent even as the engagement was done.
32.Nuptials was arranged on the even date of the marriage, during the 1st night the 1st petitioner gave a letter to the respondent and asked him to go through the letter. She demanded the respondent to fulfill all the demands mentioned in the said letter and he should apologize her parents in the presence of all the relatives and guests and he should undertake that he should respect her parents and he should also undertake that he would not do anything which she does not like. She started quarreling with the respondent and he spent sleepless night on that day.
33.The respondent tried to persuade the 1st petitioner and he spent 15 days with her and there is a little change in her attitude.
34.Since Telugu month Aashadamasam is forthcoming, the respondent’s mother told the respondent to inform the same to the 1st petitioner’s parents and in that context she grew wild. The respondent’s mother tried to cajole her by stating that it is a custom to send the newly married daughter in law to her parents house during
Aashadamasam. But the 1st petitioner was adamant.
10
35.The 1st petitioner used to quarrel with the respondent and his parents and she used to go outside the house and she used to weep on the roads even during midnight. The respondent informed her conduct and attitude to her parents. The 1st petitioner’s brother came and took her to her parents house. He was briefed about the 1st petitioner’s attitude and her conduct by the respondent. The 1st petitioner was again brought to the respondent’s house situated at
Athili 10 days thereafter and she was accompanied by elders. She admitted her misbehavior in the presence of elders and assured that she would behave properly in the future.
36.While the 1st petitioner was carrying 6th month pregnancy, the matrimonial grandfather was expired at Tummapudi situated near
Mangalagiri. There was a bickering in between the respondent’s parents and the 1st petitioner’s parents. At the funeral ceremony and in that context the 1st petitioner and her brother Rama Krishna attempted to beat the respondent’s parents. The elders intervened and rescued the respondent’s parents.
37.After few days, the 1st petitioner’s father dropped the 1st petitioner at respondent’s house assuring that she would behave properly in future. The 1st petitioner delivered a male child and again she was brought to respondent’s house 5 moths after such delivery.
The respondent noticed no change in her attitude. She created a commotion by abusing the respondent’s mother in filthy language on one day when the respondent tried to convince her, she fled away from the house and reached P.S. The constable who was on sentry duty during night reprimanded her. She abused the respondent and his mother in vulgar language and she attributed illicit intimacy in between the respondent and his mother. The respondent requested the father of the 1st petitioner to come and persuade the 1st petitioner.
Accordingly he came there and he took away the 1st petitioner to his 11 house and the 1st petitioner stayed there for 5 months. Again she was dropped at respondent’s house and 2 months thereafter she gave a report to Athili police and in that context there was counseling in between the family members of both the parties and it was proposed to put up separate family else where and away from Athili and it was accepted by both the parties. The 1st petitioner also made a proposal that the respondent should continuously reside at Tummapudi where her parents reside. The respondent agreed for the said proposal.
38.Due to continuous absence of the respondent, he sustained heavy loss in business. Then the respondent’s father- in-law shifted the family from Tummapudi to Mangalgiri village. There was no change in the 1st petitioner’s behaviour even as the family was shifted to Mangalgiri, she is more petulant. The respondent paid monthly rent of Rs.500/- for the house situated at Mangalgiri. He bore the entire family expenditure when the family was put up at Mangalagiri as well as at Tummapudi.
39.The respondent stayed at Rajahmundry while doing business there. But the 1st petitioner did not allow him to stay there.
She insisted him to stay at Athili.
40.She gave birth to a female child. Ever since the birth of the child, she suffers from ill health. The respondent got her treated at
Anurag Multi Speciality hospital in Vijayawada. He spent Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. The 1st petitioner did not attend the child properly and she quarreled with the respondent.
41.On 9.2.2008 the 1st petitioner behaved wildly and the respondent could not resist her. On 21.5.2008 the 1st petitioner, her father accompanied by relatives came to Athili and threatened the respondent and his family members. The respondent could not tolerate the harassment perpetrated by the 1st petitioner.
12
42.Common evidence was let in by the parties in
O.P.603/10.
43.In the enquiry afforded to both the parties, the petitioner was examined himself as PW1 and wedding card was marked as Ex.A1 on his behalf. The respondent herself examined as RW1 and one
K.Sivaji Rao was examined as RW2. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the respondent.
44.The points for determination are:
1. Whether the petitioner/husband has established that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent/wife.
2. Whether the petitioner/husband is entitled for dissolution of marriage as prayed for?
3. Whether the respondent/wife has established that she was neglected by the petitioner/husband?
4. Whether the respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself.
5. Whether the respondent/wife and children are entitled for maintenance as prayed for?
45.The admitted facts are the respondent was married to the petitioner on 18.5.2001 and they were blessed with 2 children during their lawful wedlock, the respondent is no other than the petitioner’s maternal uncle’s daughter.
46.POINT NO.1:
To shore up his contention, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, he filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief affirming all material averments of the petition. He asserted in the affidavit that the respondent expressed her unwillingness to marry the petitioner even as the engagement was done and even during 1st night she gave a letter to the petitioner demanding him to fulfill all the conditions mentioned therein and he should respect her parents. She attributed illicit intimacy in between him and his mother. She is petulant by picking up quarreled with out any reason and she used to 13 go out of the house and weep on the roads during mid nights. She used to crate commotion without any reason and by abusing his parents. She did not change her attitude despite all the efforts made by him.
47.It was elicited in the cross-examination he loved her and so also the respondent and there was exchange of love letters in between them. He has love and liking towards the respondent. These facts elicited in the cross-examination subvert his contention that the respondent expressed her unwillingness even on the date of engagement and thereafter. He suppressed the factum of love affairs in between the respondent and him and exchange of love letters even
before marriage for the reasons best known to him. These facts
confute his evidence that the respondent has no liking towards him and she expressed her unwillingness even before marriage and crated a scene before his mother. These facts also confute his evidence that his mother and sister persuaded the respondent when she expressed her unwillingness to marry him and represented her wish to marry an outsider.
48.It was also elicited that he could not file letters said to have been written by the respondent to him during the 1st night for she has torn the letter. But this fact was not mentioned either in the petition or in his affidavit. He pleaded in the petition and affirmed in his affidavit that she had gave a letter to him by making some demands and demanded him to fulfill all the demands. He did not state else where either in the petition or in the affidavit that she has torn the said letter. The explanation given by the witness is implausible and unnatural. He stated that his father in law accompanied by elders and one Sivaji Rao brought the respondent to his house and the respondent was not amicable even thereafter. The marriage was consummated and she stayed with him for 3 or 4 months thereafter 14 and again crated commotion. It is hardly fathomable to see that she gave a letter to him by making certain demands and asking him to fulfill even during 1st night for it is a love marriage and love letters were exchanged even as per his evidence. It cannot be lost sight of his mother and himself left for the respondent’s father’s house and stayed there for 4 months since there were misgivings in between his father and his mother regarding marriage proposal of the petitioner.
His father proposed to perform his marriage on completion of graduation and whereas the marriage was performed when he was doing 2nd year graduation. These facts bespeak that his mother and himself are very much interested to accept the marriage proposal made by the respondent’s father and the respondent also consented for it and there was a love affair even before making such proposal.
That is the reason why the petitioner had followed his mother to the respondent’s parents house even before marriage and stayed there for 4 months. In such a case the question of quarreling by the respondent with the petitioner ever since inception of the marriage does not arise.
The petitioner failed to enumerate the circumstances where under the respondent behaved in such a way. He failed to point out any reason much less valid reason, for exhibiting such behaviour by the respondent.
49.Even as seen from the facts elicited in the cross- examination the respondent was dropped by her father and elders namely Sivaji Rao and other and she stayed with him for 4 or 5 months thereafter. Even during the counseling given at P.S, she accepted the proposal to stay with him and away from her in laws and accordingly they stayed by putting up separate family initially at
Tummapudi and thereafter at Mangalagiri. These facts vindicate the respondent’s contention that she co-operated the petitioner with a hope that good sense would prevail on him and she lead conjugal life 15 with him and conceived 2 children and she stayed with him till 2007 i.e. for 6 long years after the marriage. Had really she was adamant and arrogant and she had no liking towards the petitioner she would not have accepted the proposal to live with him on putting separate family and away from his parents. She would not have co-operated him by joining him at Tummapudi and Mangalagiri. If really she is not interested to join the petitioner she would not have cooperated her parents by accompanying them and she would not have followed them to the petitioner’s house and she would not have accepted the proposal to live with the petitioner by putting up separate family. It was elicited in the cross-examination the respondent gave representation to S.P, West Godavari District and other police officials alleging that he was not looking after the infant baby and her and in that context the police suggested him to put up separate family at
Mangalagiri. He was a commuter in between Rajahmundry and
Mangalagiri since he was working in Rajahmundry by then. Another startling fact was elicited in the cross-examination that the respondent was dropped at the house by inducting her in one room highhandedly by her parents after filing the petition, before disclosing such startling fact information, he was suggested the respondent was living with him even as the present petition was filed by him and he denied the suggestion. But he neither pleaded nor affirmed either in the petition or affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief that the respondent was inducted into his house highhandedly by his in laws. These facts probablize the respondent’s contention that she was living with the petitioner even as the filing of the present petition by him and he suppressed the material facts and approached the court with unclean hands.
50.If really she was inducted into house highhandedly after filing of the present petition, the stance of a common man much less 16 prudent man requires to give a report to police or to mention the said fact at-least in his affidavit. But he did not do so for the reasons best known to him. He failed to examine his parents to prove the fact the respondent attributed illicit intimacy in between his mother and him.
He failed to examine any of the witness to prove that she used to create commotion by quarreling with him and leaving the house and weeping on the road during midnights. In view of the afore mentioned discussion, I hold his evidence does not inspire confidence.
51.Per contra the respondent examined herself as RW1 and she filed affidavit affirming that the petitioner and his parents demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and they harassed her by abusing in filthy language and by threatening her to perform the petitioner’s marriage with another woman unless she brings additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents house. She was emphatic all through her examination that she gave report to police at different stations and there was counseling and she accepted the proposal to join her husband and accordingly she joined him. But there was no change in the attitude of her husband and her in laws used to phone her demanding additional dowry. Ultimately her husband left the house and joined his parents and when she phoned him, her in laws told that they would perform the another marriage to their son and demanded her to give divorce.
52.It was elicited in the cross-examination she gave report at different police stations i.e. Athili and Mangalagiri against her in laws and her husband, she was residing at Mangalagiri by the time of filing the present petition by the petitioner herein and thereafter she shifted to Athili and gave report to police at Athili. These facts vindicate her contention that she was residing with her husband at Mangalagiri by the time of filing the present petition and there after he deserted and left to Athili and joined his parents and she joined him at Athili 17 thereafter. Nothing improbable was elicited in the cross-examination to spurn her evidence. I do not find any un-naturality in her evidence for she was emphatic all through regarding the material facts and I do not find any sway in her evidence regarding those material facts. She examined Sivaji Rao as RW2 on her behalf and he is no other than the grandfather of the respondent. It is very much there in the evidence and pleading of the petitioner that the respondent was dropped at his house by her father and elders by name Sivaji Rao after she left for her parents house as per custom during Telugu month
Aashadamasam. Sivaji Rao affirmed in the affidavit that the respondent told him the unlawful demand for Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry by the petitioner and his parents and they demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for business purpose of the petitioner and in that context he followed the respondent’s father to Athili and chastised them and thereafter the respondent shifted his family to Mangalagiri. He further stated one
K.Krishna Prasad, H.Mouleswara Rao, K.Rama Krishna and himself approached the petitioner after the respondent gave report to police at
Mangalagiri and they chastised the petitioner and his parents.
53.Nothing improbable was elicited in the cross-examination to show the witness deposed with strong propensities. He is the relative of both the petitioner and the respondent and I, therefore, find no reason whatsoever for this witness to depose with strong likes and dislikes. The petitioner himself stated in the cross-examination this witness followed the respondent’s father and approached him. I, therefore find no reason to disdain his evidence. His evidence inspires confidence. In view of the afore mentioned discussion, I hold the petitioner failed to establish he was treated with cruelty by the respondent. I therefore answer this point in negative and against the petitioner/husband.
54.POINT NO:2 18
In view of the discussion on point.1, I hold the petitioner is not entitled for dissolution of marriage as prayed for.
55.POINT NO:3
The respondent/ wife affirmed in her affidavit the petitioner/husband and his parents demanded her for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and they also demanded for Rs.5,00,000/- to start the business. The petitioner during the cross-examination stated that the respondent/wife gave report against him alleging that he was not looking after the infant baby and her and in that context there was counseling. It cannot be lost sight of the respondent gave two reports at Mangalagiri and Athili alleging the petitioner/husband was not looking after her. She also sent elders i.e. RW2, her father and some others to persuade the petitioner/husband and she joined the petitioner/husband as per the advice of the elders.
56.She lived with him at Tummapudi and at Mangalagiri after he put up separate family as per the advice of the elders. The petitioner/husband suppressed the facts that his marriage is love marriage and there was exchange of love letters for the reasons best known to him. He also suppressed the facts the respondent/wife was inducted into his house highhandedly by her parents after filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. These facts go to show that he has no regard for truth. RW2 who is the grandfather of the respondent and relative of both the parties deposed that he chastised the petitioner when the respondent told him that he demanded additional dowry of
Rs.10,00,000/-and his parents threatened the respondent stating that they would perform another marriage to the petitioner. His evidence remained unshattered and he corroborated the evidence of respondent/wife on material fronts and I do not find any sway in his evidence. But the petitioner/husband failed to examine even his father for the reasons best known to him and he failed to examine his mother 19 to show that the respondent attributed illicit intimacy in between his mother and him. Having taken such a plea it is incumbent on the petitioner to establish the said fact. In the absence of such evidence, it amounts to careless and reckless allegation and it amounts to cruelty on the part of the husband.
57.It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 there is no proof evidencing that he sent money to the respondent and children to enable them to meet their bare necessities. His son was studying 8th class and daughter was studying 1st class. He also admitted that the respondent has no capacity to do job. He also admitted the respondent and the children are under the patronage of the respondent’s father.
He failed to give narratives when he sent money to the respondent and his children and the mode of sending money i.e. through bank, money order or by directly giving cash and if so the dates. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be contraverted that he sent money to the respondent and children to enable them to meet their bare necessities.
58.It was further elicited that he sold away 72 cents of landed property to incur expenses required to file the present petition and to prosecute the other petition and that land was sold away to her younger brother and the copy of the sale deed dt:26.8.2011 was exhibited as B1 and copy of another sale deed dt:26.8.2011 executed for Rs.3,63,000/- was marked as Ex.B2. These facts probablize the respondent’s contention that he made those alienations to deprive the wife and children for claiming maintenance and to realize the maintenance amount. All these facts go to show the petitioner/husband endevoured to gloss over his liability to pay maintenance to the wife and children. In view of the afore mentioned discussion, I hold the husband neglected the wife and children and this point is answered accordingly.
20
59.POINT NO:4
PW1 admitted in the cross examination the respondent/wife and children are under the patronage of the respondent’s father. The respondent has no capacity to do job. These facts vindicate the respondent/wife contention that she is unable to maintain herself. I, therefore answer this point in favor of the respondent/wife.
60.POINT NO:5
As seen from the material available on record, the petitioner is doing leather business and he alienated the landed property under Ex.B1 and B2 and he realized sale proceeds of
Rs.3,63,000/- under Ex.B2 bearing his financial capacity in mind, I earnestly feel awarding Rs.2000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1500/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 children from the date of filing of the petition would meet the ends of justice.
61.In the result, the petition O.P.603/10 is dismissed and
M.C.139/08 is allowed directing the husband to make monthly
allowance of Rs.2000/- to the wife and Rs.1500/- each to both the children from the date of filing of the petition till the respondents 2 and 3 (children) attain majority.
Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2015.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
VIJAYAWADA.
21
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:
PW1 : P.Vijaya Sankar R.W.1:P.Vijaya Lakshmi R.W.2: S.Sivaji Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PETITIONER:
Ex.A1-Wedding card
RESPONDENT :
Ex.B126.8.2011Copy of sale deed Ex.B2:26.8.2011-do-
Judge, F.C-cum-IV
ADJ,VJA.
22
IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S
COURT AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: Sri U. Satyarao, B.Com., B.L.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
Monday, 27th day of April, 2015
O.P.No.603/2010 AND M.C.No.139/2008
OP No.603/2010:
(OP No.57/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT,
TANUKU)
Between:-
Pakirabad Vijaya Sankar, S/o Babji Rao, Hindu, 31 years, employee, R/o Attili village and Mandal, …Petitioner Tanuku JCJC
And
Pakirabad Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Vijaya Sankar, Hindu, 31 years, House wife, D/o Kovelakar Sai .Respondent Babu, Near 6th Battalion Police campus Gate, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
This is a petition filed U/s.13 (1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage of petitioner and the respondent dated 18.5.2001 by granting decree of divorce.
Petition Presented on: 2.6.2008
This petition is coming on 10.4.2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.Rama Krishna Prasad, J.Ravi Babu, P.Krishna Mohan,Advocates,forthepetitionerandofSri C.V.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate, for respondent, and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order and decree:
DECREE
i)that the petition be and same is hereby dismissed
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT
THIS THE 27th day of April, 2015.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
VIJAYAWADA.
23
IN THE FAMILY COURT- CUM-IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE’S
COURT AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: Sri U. Satyarao, B.Com., B.L.,
Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
Monday, 27th day of April, 2015
M.C.No.139/2008
Between:-
1. Pakirabad Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Vijaya Sankar, Hindu, 31 years, House wife, D/o Kovelakar Sai Babu, R/o Islampet, Panja Centre, Vijayawada -1
2. Pakirabad Surya Siddesh, S/o Vijaya Sankar, 6 years…Petitioners
3. Pakirabad Kusuma Chandana Drakshayani, 2 years
And
Pakirabad Vijaya Sankar, S/o Babji Rao, Hindu, 31 years, employee and properties, R/o Near Police .Respondent station, Attili village, Tanuku Taluq, W.G.District
This petition filed U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent to make monthly allowance of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/-each to the petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition.
Petition Presented on:4.9.2008
This petition is coming on 10.4.2015 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.V.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate, for the petitioners and of Sri G.V.Rama Krishna Prasad, J.Ravi Babu, P.Krishna Mohan, Advocates, for respondent, and upon perusing the petition, counter, and other material on record, having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order and decree:
DECREE
i)that the petition be and same is hereby allowed; ii)that the respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 4.9.2008 till the petitioners 2 and 3 attain majority.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT
THIS THE 27th day of April, 2015.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
VIJAYAWADA.