Neetu , Yashoda vs Rajesh Ganathe

Heard Smt. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant in F.C.A.No.156 of 2012 and petitioner in C.C.No.3014 of 2018 and Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 27.10.2011 in O.P.No.387 of 2010 passed by the learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, appellant-wife preferred the present appeal.

Respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide O.P.No.387 of 2010 against appellant-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

The marriage of appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was performed on 23.11.2008 at Tirupathi as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. It is relevant to note that it is second marriage to both of them. After marriage, they joined in matrimonial home at Ferozguda, Secunderabad and they went to Kerala for Honeymoon trip on 29.11.2008 and they came back on 04.12.2008. Their marriage was consummated. Reception was held on 28.12.2008. They have also went to Tuljapur, yadagirigutta and other holy places.

It is contended by respondent-husband that on 28.12.2008, reception was held in the night, on the said date, somebody informed the appellant that character of the respondent is not good and without disclosing the name of the person. She was weeping and showing angriness on the respondent without observing that the close relatives were staying in the home. On the very next day, the appellant called her father and went along with him to her parents house.

It is further contended by the respondent-husband that he has disclosed everything to the appellant-wife before accepting the marriage proposal. On enquiry only, she accepted for the same. Respondent is a graduate and appellant is a post graduate. She started picking up quarrel with the respondent due to the aforesaid misunderstanding. He tried to clear the same. He stayed in the parent’s house of appellant, even then, there is no change in the attitude of the appellant. With great difficulty, she joined with the respondent at matrimonial home on 01.01.2009. Within 30 days, she started repeating the same and started blaming the respondent. She started picking up quarrel with the respondent and she used to go to her parents house. On 22.02.2009, without any reason, appellant called her father and went to her parent’s house. Thereafter, she never came to matrimonial home or joined the company of the respondent. She herself left the society of the respondent and matrimonial home. Thereafter, despite several attempts made by respondent, she refused to join the company of the respondent.

Appellant-wife never cooperated with the respondent-husband to lead conjugal life. She told her name as Neetu before marriage and after marriage she told her name as Yashoda and she is 3 to 4 months older than respondent. But, after marriage she disclosed that she is three years older than him. She told false story about her previous marriage and its failure. She is having frequent giddiness and collapse when she feels giddiness. She also suffers from low blood pressure, back ache and severe waist pains. Besides all the physical problems she is mentally disordered, particularly in leading marital life. She was not interested or cooperative with sexual intercourse. She used to give slaps to the respondent whenever he approaches and she used to shout and beat the respondent and surprisingly she used to question respondent whether she had no right to do the same. The respondent vexed with the attitude of the appellant in not cooperating to lead marital life. He has tolerated the same. There is no change in the attitude of the appellant. She has repeated the aforesaid criminal acts towards him.

Appellant informed the respondent that she could not adjust with the marital life. After coming back to her parents house, her brother would arrange job either in India or in USA, as her brother settled in USA. After leaving the matrimonial home by the appellant, he made every effort to get her back. There is no use. He along with his mother, his maternal uncle Shankar Rao and aunt Meerabai went to house of the appellant and tried to convince the appellant, but her father started scolding in filthy language and made an attempt to beat the respondent. Thus, the meetings conducted by them were unsuccessful. According to respondent, appellant deserted him and also subjected him to cruelty.

Appellant-wife herein had filed counter denying the said allegations. Respondent-husband made the said allegations only to get rid of her.

To prove the said allegations of cruelty, respondent-husband examined himself as PW.1 and his brother as PW.2. He filed Ex.A1-Weding Photo, Ex.A2-Election ID Card and Ex.A3-Photographs of petitioner’s bedroom marked through RW.1. To disprove the same, appellant-wife examined herself as RW.1 and her father as RW.2. She did not file any documents.

On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, vide impugned order and decree dated 27.10.2011, learned Family Court allowed the said O.P and dissolved the marriage of appellant with the respondent by granting decree of divorce. Feeling aggrieved by the same, appellant-wife preferred the present appeal.

It is relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 29.03.2012 granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Vide order dated 30.10.2012 in F.C.A.M.P.No.225 of 2012 in F.C.A.No.156 of 2012, this Court directed respondent-husband to pay maintenance arrears @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the appellant-wife from November, 2011 to till date within a period of four weeks and he shall continue to pay the maintenance at the same rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by the 7th day of every succeeding month. This Court also directed the Registry to list this matter for final hearing within two (02) months.

The appellant-wife had filed Contempt Case vide C.C.No.3014 of 2018 alleging that respondent-husband violated the said order dated 30.10.2012 willfully and deliberately and he has not paid the aforesaid amount in compliance with the said order.

We have heard Smt. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant-wife and Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband extensively.

There is no dispute that it is second marriage to both the appellant as well as respondent. During cross-examination, appellant-wife admitted that she has not stayed with her first husband even for a single day. She has further admitted that she has obtained decree of divorce in the year 2001 in O.P.No.48 of 2001. Her family members made effort to perform her second marriage from 2001 to 2008. It could not materialize. Ultimately, the proposal of marriage of the appellant with the respondent was moved through mediators-well wishers. Her second marriage was performed on 23.11.2008. She has admitted about the Honeymoon trip to Kerala on 29.11.2008 and that respondent took proper care in Honeymoon trip. But, respondent-husband is dominative and arrogant.

Appellant further admitted that it is the respondent who called her father and she went away along with him as the respondent asked her to go along with her father. On the next day of reception in the morning hours, respondent demanded 5,000 dollars from her which was not complied by her father, as such respondent called her father and asked her to go with her father. On 30.12.2008, respondent came to her parents house for taking her away. He came only on the request of her father, he stayed for two days in her parents house. Respondent, his mother, his elder sister along with her daughter went to the parent’s house of appellant on 31.12.2008 to quarrel with her and her family members but, not to take her back. On 31.12.2008, respondent stayed with her at her parent’s house and that on 01.01.2009, he took her to matrimonial home. She admitted that there is dining hall in between bed room and kitchen wherein they used to stay. There is also an open area in front of the balcony. She further admitted that on 26.02.2009, she called her father and went away along with him and respondent asked her to go away. Thereafter, she never joined the company of the respondent. On 26.01.2010, respondent along with PW.2 and his wife and other family members came to her parent’s house not to take her back but to break the marriage. From her side, she or her family members never went to the house of the respondent for discussions. However, according to her, they never allowed them to come.

The aforesaid facts would reveal that though the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 23.11.2008, she left the matrimonial house on 26.02.2009 along with her father. During cross-examination, she admitted that she never joined the company of the respondent. There are no issues out of their wedlock. PW.2 is the brother of respondent, who has deposed in the same lines. RW.2 is the father of the appellant herein, he also admitted about his daughter-RW.1 calling him on 29.12.2008, she was asked to take her back by herself only. On 30.12.2008, respondent approached him and requested to send his daughter to matrimonial house and stayed in his house for two days. His family members also came to the house of RW.2. After two days, he sent his daughter back to matrimonial house. Respondent never demanded personally anything from him. He has taken his daughter to the matrimonial home on 22.02.2009 on the request made by the respondent. There was meeting in his co-brother’s house before the elders of both the families on 25.02.2009.

The aforesaid facts would reveal that meetings were held, even then there is no change in the attitude of the parties. According to respondent, appellant did not cooperate with him in leading conjugal life, though it is a second marriage to him, the purpose of second marriage was defeated. There was no chance of leading conjugal life with the appellant-wife. Thus, appellant-wife deserted him and also subjected him to cruelty. It is a reasoned order.

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by Smt. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant that respondent married third time. He has children with third wife. Appellant and respondent are living separately from 2009 onwards i.e., more than 15 years. There is no possibility of reunion. Appellant is aged about 49 years and respondent is aged about 48 years.

It is also relevant to note that appellant-wife is older than the respondent-husband. The said fact is born out of record. Admittedly, the appellant is older than the respondent and it is evident from the deposition of RW.1. He is a graduate and she is a post graduate. It appears that the said aspects created misunderstandings between the appellant and respondent. Even it is born out of record that appellant started harassing the respondent on the information furnished by relative that respondent character is bad. Thus, they lived only for a short period i.e., from 23.11.2008 to 26.02.2009.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, Smt. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions made a submission that even appellant is not interested in leading matrimonial life with the respondent, she sought an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. She would further submit that respondent did not comply with the order dated 30.10.2012. Therefore, she has filed a Contempt Case vide C.C.No.3014 of 2018.

Whereas, Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that appellant is in the habit of filing applications against her first husband and second husband. She has filed similar application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from her first husband and the said matter was compromised. Her first husband had paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. The said fact was not admitted by her in her cross-examination. Referring to the same and also contending that appellant stayed with the respondent only for short period, she is not entitled for any permanent alimony. However, on instructions, he would submit that respondent is ready to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

In the light of the aforesaid submission, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of appellant staying with the respondent. They have stayed only for a short period. They have no children out of their wedlock. The said aspects were considered by the learned Family Court and granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of appellant with the respondent dated 23.11.2008. It is a reasoned order. However, considering the fact that this Court vide order dated 30.10.2012 directed the respondent-husband to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the appellant-wife towards maintenance; also the fact that the respondent did not pay the same, respondent had paid the said amount for some time; did not pay the same and also considering the pendency of Contempt Case, we are of the considered view to award permanent alimony to the appellant. According to us, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is a reasonable amount.

Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part confirming the order and decree passed by the learned Family Court in O.P.No.387 of 2010 dated 27.10.2011 dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent dated 23.11.2008. However, respondent-husband shall pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant-wife within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, liberty is granted to appellant-wife to take steps in accordance with law.

In the light of the aforesaid findings, C.C.No.3014 of 2018 is liable to be closed and accordingly it is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.