* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

F.C.A.No.2 of 2011

(Judgment of the Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) %04-12-2013

#Gujjala Ratnakar Reddy

..appellant

Vs.

$Gujjala Janaki ..Respondent

!Counsel for the appellant : Sri B. Narayana Reddy

^Counsel for the Respondent : Sri B. Ranganatha Rao

< GIST:

HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL

F.C.A.No.2 of 2011

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

The petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.117 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Warangal, filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the O.P.

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place, way back on 14-03-1986. Shortly after the marriage,

the appellant got employment in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore, and the parties lived there, for about 12 years. They had a daughter, who is now grown up. The appellant filed the O.P., under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) and clause (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(for short 'the Act'). He stated that the respondent was harassing him in different ways, such as exhibiting rude and indifferent behaviour and using filthy language. He stated that on several occasions, the matter was brought to the notice of the elders also, and in spite of their intervention, there was no change in the attitude and conduct of the respondent. The respondent is said to have raised hands threatening to beat him.

The appellant stated that to get the mental status of the respondent checked, he has taken her to a Gastroenterologist, by

name, Dr. Badrinarayana Soma, and thereafter, a Neurosurgeon/Psychiatrist, Dr. Ch. Mohan Rao; and they are said to have treated her. He further stated that at one point of time, he left the house, unable to bear the harassment of the respondent, and ever since then, there is no union between them. He stated that the marriage between them is irretrievably broken, and that he is entitled to be granted a decree of divorce. Reference was also made to a legal notice dated 01-08-2005, issued by him, requiring the respondent to join him for filing a divorce petition, with mutual consent.

The respondent filed a detailed counter. She denied the allegations made against her. She pleaded that the appellant was harassing her for additional dowry, and he left her and her daughter, abruptly, and that the daughter had to be admitted in Junior College with the financial help of her family members. It was stated that she is leading her life with the financial help extended by her brothers, when the appellant totally neglected her. She further pleaded that when elders insisted, the appellant dropped her in his parents' house at Warangal, though his place of employment is Ramagundam.

The trial Court dismissed the O.P. through order dated 21-10-2009. Hence, this appeal.

Heard Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Ranganatha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

The appellant pleaded as many as three grounds for decree of divorce against the respondent, viz., cruelty, desertion and the one of suffering from mental disorder on the part of the respondent. The latter opposed the O.P., by filing counter. The trial Court framed only one

point for its consideration, viz., whether the appellant is entitled for divorce. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were filed. The respondent deposed as RW-1 and she filed Exs.B-1 and B-2. The O.P. was dismissed.

Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the appellant has proved the grounds of cruelty, desertion and suffering of the respondent, continuously, or intermittently from mental disorder.

It is 20 years after the marriage, that the appellant filed the O.P., for divorce by pleading the three grounds, referred to above. Though the ground of cruelty was mentioned in the O.P., no specific acts in relation thereto were pleaded. According to the appellant,

the alleged conduct of the respondent caused harassment and cruelty to him. The O.P., itself is very vague and general in this behalf.

A perusal of paragraph 2 of the O.P., discloses that the grievance of the appellant was mostly about the alleged "extraordinary behaviour and rude manner of the respondent".

The only other detail, if one may call it, as furnished in the O.P.,

is that, at one point of time, the respondent raised hand to beat him, and thereafter, the conduct of the respondent became unabated. The appellant is said to have done everything possible to maintain his social status and family background, but was not successful on account of the conduct of the respondent.

The evidence of the appellant, as PW-1, did not add any clarity, to the otherwise vague and general allegations made in the O.P. The only thing, which, one can presume, is that, it is the appellant, who developed some dislike, approximating to hatred, towards the respondent, and just tried to call it as, cruelty.

Coming to the ground of desertion, we come across a rare phenomenon, where the person, who left the matrimonial home; complains of desertion on the part of the other. This is what the appellant said, in paragraph 4 of the O.P:

"…It is submitted that in the year 2004 when the daughter was preparing for 10 th class examination, the Petitioner due to the continuous harassment of the respondent and in order to not to disrobe the academic carrier of the child and to avoid further embarrassment had resided separately by leaving the respondent and the daughter in the quarter allotted to him at the place of employment i.e., Kendriya Vidyalaya Quarters of Secunderabad…"

No where it was mentioned that the respondent has left the house of the appellant and deserted him. Having left the house, and started living elsewhere, curiously, the appellant has chosen to plead the grounds of desertion against his wife, the respondent. There cannot be any better instance of an oppressor making an attempt to play the role of a victim.

The ground referable to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act is an extraordinary one. It is only when a spouse suffers from incurable mental disorder, which renders him, or her, unfit, to lead the matrimonial life, that the Court can consider the feasibility of granting divorce. Using his perverted intelligence, the appellant made an attempt to make the Court to believe that the respondent is mentally unstable and she is a psychiatric patient.

His outrageous attitude is reflected from the fact that he filed a petition before this Court to send the respondent to a psychiatrist. Even from the O.P., it is evident that he first took the respondent to a Gastroenterologist. The relevant portion in paragraph 3 of the O.P.,

reads:

"…Petitioner found the mental imbalance of the respondent in as much as at times the respondent used to change her version with quick succession and contrary versions and there by the Petitioner in order to have her mental status had even approached a doctor and to that effect initially a Gastroenterologist Dr. Badri Narayana Soma, MD., D.M., Hyderabad and on further advise after preliminary test the respondent again took the treatment from Neurosurgeon/Psychiatrist from Dr.Ch. Mohan Rao, who in turn treated the respondent and after deep study of the history of respondent had prescribed certain specified course of medicines and advised to inform about the mental condition of the respondent from time to time in order to facilitated to coup up the exigencies of the respondent and her mental condition and for that purpose even the respondent gave up to follow the treatment and to that effect her harassment was increased rampantly against the Petitioner who was not in a position to bear the mental, physical harassment of respondent any longer".

A perusal of this pleading, in a way, gives an impression that there is something seriously wrong with the appellant. He was not clear as to what he was doing. One can easily estimate the mental balance of a person, who approaches a Gastroenterologist, to get a patient treated for alleged mental illness.

PW-2 is a relation of the appellant. From this witness, it was elicited that the maternal aunt and uncle of the appellant are suffering from mental illness. PW-3 is a Doctor, specialized in Psychiatry. She stated that she cannot express any opinion by seeing the papers placed before her. To be precise, she stated,

"by seeing copy (Xerox) I cannot say whether the patient referred to me is suffering from any Psychiatric illness".

From this, it is clear that the appellant was reeling under several

false impressions. During the course of counselling,

before us, the appellant, respondent and their daughter appeared. The respondent expressed her unconditional readiness to join the appellant. Though the appellant promised before us, on as many as three occasions, to take the respondent and their daughter, to his place of working, he evaded by citing totally untenable reasons and telling falsehoods.

We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

M.S.K. JAISWAL, J.

_______________________

Dt.04-12-2013.

Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/O) KO