INDIRA SONTI Vs. SURYANARAYANA MURTY SONTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit No.2075/2000 has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (for short 'Act') for decree for personal maintenance as well as for damages against her husband(deferdant No.1) and father-in-law (defendant No.2) for allegedly ruining her life. It has been filed as indigent person. The plaintiff claims herself to be a helpless, poor, educated girl of middle class family who had dreamt of a happy married life. However, her dreams stand shattered and in the process she lost everything i.e. status, service, dignity and peace. It is also stated that her father was an Assistant Editor in Directorate of Extension under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India who retired on 31/5/1994 and spent all his life savings on the marriage of his daughter i.e. plaintiff with the defendant No.1 in USA in the hope that she would lead a happy married life. The plaintiff is a post graduate diploma holder in management, a citizen of India and a Hindu by religion. She was holding a permanent post of Secretary in Tata Energy Research Institute (for short 'TERI'), New Delhi and was about to be promoted when she was made to resign at the request of the defendants and on persuasion of the family members and also in view of her impending marriage and settlement in USA. On 14/4/ 1999 the plaintiff along with her father went to USA and got married on 23/4/1999 before the Clerk of Peace Office, wilmington. New Castle County, Delaware USA. On 25/4/1999 in the Lord Venkateswara Temple, Pittsburgh, USA the wedding was solemnised/performed according to the Hindu traditions. According to the allegations made in the plaint the father of the plaintiff gave costly gifts, jewellery and other valuables to the plaintiff. Later on the same day i.e. 25/4/1999 the defendant No.1 told the plaintiff that in case she wanted to stay with him her father would have to pay more gifts and at least Rs.10.00 lacs in cash. She tried to convince the defendant No.1 not to force her father to pay anything more as he was not in a position to pay Rs. 10.00 lacs. On the same night at Pittsburgh, USA the defendant; No.1 demanded divorce from the plaintiff for not co-operating with him and forcing her father to pay further gifts and cash of atleast Rs. 10 lacs. The plaintiff denied her consent for divorce. On 26/4/1999 instead of going to the house of defendant No.1, the plaintiff and her father were taken to the house of her sister-in-law (Dr.Gayatri Sonti) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, put up there and directed to return to India. All the requests of the plaintiff's father not to force him to give more gifts or cash were rejected by the defendants. The plaintiff and her father reluctantly booked flight to New Delhi for 1/5/1999. However, couple of hours before the departure from USA, the defendant no.1 visited the plaintiff and her father along with parents at Bethlehem USA and stated that he had reconsidered the matter and the plaintiff could life with him provided she sign five blank sheets and give the same to him. Little knowing that this was a strategy underlying the drama of reconciliation, the plaintiff signed five blank sheets and gave those to the defendants. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 and his parents took the plaintiff and her father to their home in Newark, Delaware, USA. On 4/5/1999 father of plaintiff came back to India. The defendant No.1 however again started demanding more gifts and money and subjected the plaintiff to all kinds of harassment. Suddenly on 8/5/1999 the defendant No.1 told the plaintiff that their separation would commence from 12/5/1999 and she could go anywhere she liked. The plaintiff was shocked to hear this as she was rendered penniless in a totally alien and foreign country. She was made to accompany her sister-in-law to her residence: in Bethlehem, USA. On 11/5/1999 the plaintiff was taken by defendant No.2 and his wife to J.F.Kennedy Airport, New York, USA from where she flew to New Delhi at her own expense. Thereafter the plaintiff vide maintenance petition dated 6/6/1999 approached the Family Court, Wilmington, Delaware, USA for maintenance. The plaintiff has stated in detail the events thereafter relating to the said petition, the gist whereof is that the court has not proceeded in the matter although acknowledging that plaintiff's maintenance petition and reminders were on record. This is what is summed up in para 35 of the plaint.

(2.) Along with this suit, IA No.1559/2000 is filed for pendente lite maintenance at the rate of US $ 1200 or Re.51,600.00 per month calculated at the then existing rate of Rs.43.00(approx.) per US $. The defendant No.1 has filed reply to this application contesting the right of the plaintiff to seek order for interim maintenance. Counsel for the parties made detailed submissions on this application.

(3.) Mr. V.P.Chaudhry, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1 opposed the application on the following three grounds: (i)This court had no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the present suit filed by the plaintiff. (ii)Under Section 18 of the Act, no order for interim maintenance could be passed in view of the law laid down by by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gorivelli Appanna Vs. Gorivelli Seethamma reported in AIR 1972 A.P.62. (iii)On merits it was stated that the annual salary of the defendant No.1 was US $ 65000.00 out of which he was paying taxes to the tune of US $ 20000.00. He was made to Incur expenses on rent of the house, etc. amounting to US $ 36000.00, and therefore, the net amount left with him after all these expensed was only US $ 9000.00 which was barely sufficient for his own survival and therefore he was not in a position to give any maintenance to the plaintiff.