GOPALAKRISHNA SURAPANENI Vs. ANURADHA SURAPANENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of a common order, dated 30 -11 -2006, in O.P. Nos.602 of 2003 and 369 of 2005, passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short the Family Court).

(2.) FORMER O.P. is filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage by grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i -a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act), but he was unsuccessful. Latter O.P. is filed by the wife seeking decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act and she became successful. Aggrieved of the same, the husband preferred both these appeal.

(3.) WE intend to refer to the relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of both these appeals. a) The marriage between the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 24 -10 -1999 in a local function hall at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage. The proposal was initiated and mediated by one Mr. P.V. Kutumba Rao, a close relative of the father of appellant. The appellant gave consent agreeing to the proposal in the month of July, 1999 to marry the respondent. b) During the period of settlement of marriage alliance, the respondents father revealed to the parents of the appellant that her earlier alliance was broken due to bad character of the bride -groom. Despite the same, the appellant developed a soft -corner towards the respondent and decided to proceed for marriage. Since he was posted at Botswana at the time of engagement ceremony that took place on 29 -08 -1999, the engagement ceremony was performed in his absence, thus, the usual formalities were observed and the marriage had taken place after his return from Botswana in the second week of October, 1999. c) The appellant states that right from the beginning, the respondent exhibited crude behaviour, adamant attitude, arrogance and the cumulative effect of the same led to his mental torture and agony. Since the alleged acts, constituting cruelty, have been narrated as many as in (116) paragraphs, we intend to summarize them as points, which are as under: i) The respondent asked the appellant to give his money and transfer his property to her which shocked him; ii) For the Diwali festival that fallen on 07 -11 -1999, on an invitation from the appellants parents -in -law, they left to his parents - in -laws house, but the respondent did not even inform his parents, and on the other hand, she picked up an argument spoiling his festive mood accusing him that he was responsible for forcing wasteful expenditure on the respondents parents during marriage. iii) When they visited Vijayawada on 11 -11 -1999 to attend the marriage of respondents brother, since his father intended to visit an Ashram near Vijayawada located about 60 KMs. away and seek blessings of a Guruji, his father when informed his father -in -law, a Jeep was arranged by his father -in -law, but the respondent reluctantly got into the Jeep as she was not willing to have the blessings of the Guruji, and when his parents got down at Benz Circle, she hurled abusive phrases against his parents accusing him that he did not deserve to be married and that he should have taken Sanyas. iv) On 23 -12 -1999, when his parents went to Saibaba Tample at BHEL, Ramachandrapuram on Datta Jayanthi Celebrations at 7.00 P.M., he expressed his intention to wait till his parents return, to take dinner with them, but she got wild and slept in the bed -room. v) On 25 -12 -1999, when his parents asked him to take them to his sisters house at Motinagar in Hyderabad, he requested the respondent to join them, but she refused and did not take dinner on that night and break -fast on 26 -12 -1999 and without informing him she got arranged a car through her parents and at 10.00 A.M., she left them without informing his parents even, locking the bed room and taking away the keys with her. vi) In December, 1999, when they visited the house of one Mr. Subhash, a friend of the appellant, for dinner, he (Mr. Subhash) had shown some of his honeymoon photographs to them and, after they returned home, she has ridiculed him and abused for not taking her to honeymoon trip. He explained her that they can have a nice time as they would be going to United States of America (USA) soon, but she degraded his status by saying that Mr. Subhash is a better person when compared to him. vii) In December, 2000, his mother -in -law invited her daughter (respondent) to attend a fare -well party of a friend of his father -in -law, who retired on that day, but he returned at 8.00 P.M. from his office, and since it takes one hours journey to reach the party venue and also he was not invited, he refused to take her, on which, she shouted at him and did not take dinner in protest. viii) During January and February, 2000, before proceeding to USA, the appellant intended to visit Shirdi and his relatives places, which he has expressed during general discussions, but since the respondent did not express any interest, he purchased tickets for himself only, and the said fact when learnt by her, she questioned him, on which, he told her that it was too late and that he would buy tickets for her also, but she shouted at him stating that she would have come had he originally bought the tickets for her also and, thus, she did not like to come. ix) In January, 2000, when the wife of respondents brother left her brother, she informed the appellant about bad character of her sister -in -law, but he ignored it. But, during April, 2000, one of his relatives told his parents that they (his parents) were not treating the respondent properly and not allowing the appellant to spend time with her, on which, they got upset and stopped speaking to the respondent. He also felt bad and reduced his interactions with the respondent. x) When the appellant had to make trip to Kuwait, he did not inform the respondent about it and started packing for the trip in April, 2000, since none of them were talking to her, she became anxious and asked him that they were not talking to her, on which, when he revealed the reason, she got wild and shouted at him and commented at his parents. She has also abused him for not informing about his trip to Kuwait and reminded that in earlier discussions when he informed her that his Company would be sending him to Middle East Asia, she used to tell him that she did not like to travel to Middle East Asia and that is why, he was making the trip alone. Having heard the said shouts as it was a small neighbour -hood, even the neighbours came out of the houses to see what was happening in their house, thus, he was deeply hurt and embarrassed and left for Kuwait. xi) For her birthday, when the appellant called her on 20 -04 -2000, to greet her, she started abusing him, because of non -intimation of Flight schedule and not calling her immediately after reaching the Kuwait, though, he thought that she would apologise for the incidents that took place, instead, she shouted at him and, therefore, according to him, she was very adamant and unpleasant in her behaviour and he decided not to talk to her and did not call her until he returned to India on 1st July, 2000 for a break of two weeks. xii) When the appellant took the respondent to Ramoji Film City for a holiday trip, since there was separation for two and half months between them, and that could bring some positive change in her behaviour, still, she started shouting at him and abusing him, commenting at her parents that they were creating differences between them and responsible for all the problems, on which, he warned her not to speak a word against his parents saying that his parents were more sympathetic towards her. xiii) On 10 -07 -2000, four days before his departure to Kuwait, he met with an accident and had some stitches on his leg and he was advised to take two weeks bed rest, during which time, the respondent was staying at her parents house and she came to see only once, and that instead of sympathizing with him, she told that God had punished him for not taking her along with him to Kuwait. xiv) On 27 -07 -2000, when he called the respondent and gave his departure schedule, she did not turn up at the Air -port to see him off. xv) On 24 -08 -2000, though, he gave his arrival schedule, the respondent did not come to receive him. The appellant also states that they called the mediator, Mr. Kutumba Rao, and his father -in -law and when they were informed about the incidents that took place at his house, his father -in -law got shocked and promised that he would censure his daughter and bring her to his (appellant) house. Next day, when he (father -in -law) brought the respondent, and when he (appellant) asked him whether he has censured his daughter, to his surprise, he shouted back at him saying that he should not have married his daughter if he did not know how to take care of her, and if he did not like her, he could have left her and she could have lived her life independently, on which, they were shocked and he decided to go to USA alone without the respondent. Later, discussions went on among themselves and late in that night, his father -in -law told him that parents would be happy only if the children are happy and asked them to forget all the past issues and start a fresh life in USA. He also states that they left for USA on 09 -09 -2000 and for one year they lived happily and he took the respondent to the tourists places, such as Disney Land, Niagara Falls and lot of visits to Temples etc. xvi) He states that during February, 2001, his parents informed him that his sister was pregnant, but the respondent did not react positively when the good news was conveyed to her, and on the other hand, expressed that his parents and his sister should have informed her about the good news. Thus, she developed wanton animosity against his sister. xvii) In between January and June, 2001, one of his friends, Mr. Srinivas, an extrovert, used to be very friendly and close with all the Non -Indian Families in Stamford and, during parties and get -togethers, he used to crack jokes and make fun of couples by making general comments, such as Mrs. X is angry now, and so Mr. X is not getting any food today. Similarly, he cracked jokes against the appellant and respondent. The respondent took advantage of the said comments and accused the appellant saying that he was discussing his personal problems with his friends and continued a negative attitude. A year later, when her mother had come to their house in USA, she raised the same issues several times and derided and debased him by telling her mother that he was a characterless person and that he had no shame in discussing personal issues with his friends. xviii) Certain similar issues were also mentioned in paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the petition. xix) In the last week of November, 2001, he made a telephonic call to his parents and before ending the call, he asked his mother as to whether she would like to speak with the respondent, but her mother refused to speak with the respondent. When the same was noticed by the respondent, she increased her animosity towards his parents and started making sarcastic comments against them. She had also derided her in -laws for not inviting her parents to the 21st day ceremony of his sisters son. He tried to persuade her stating that it may take some time to reconcile the differences between the two families and re -build the relationship, but she ridiculed him shouting against her in -laws. When he asked his mother as to why she refused to speak with respondent, she (his mother) then reminded him as to how the respondent had shouted at her and abused her in full view of the neighbours and asked him how she could speak to the respondent when she did not respect them. xx) In the first week of December, 2001, the respondent commented that it was the responsibility of the appellant and his parents to take care of her, but his parents have not sent anything and that she was ashamed of accepting jewellery from her parents. In the first week of January, 2002, they visited New York City to see some of his family friends, Mr. and Mrs. Venkateswara Rao, and from their house, they went to the house of Mr. and Mrs. M.S. Rao and their daughters family. Mr. and Mrs. M.S. Rao have just returned from India along with their daughter, son -in -law and grand -daughter. When they visited his parents in India, they recorded them on their camcorder and also recorded his sister and sisters son and it was played on the Television during their visit. He was excited to see his parents, his sister and her newly born son, but the respondent did not see the recording and stayed away in another room; though, all of them called her to see the recording, she adamantly stayed away in another room and openly disregarded her parents in front of them. xxi) The appellant took the respondent to a general medical practitioner, Dr. Shanti Devaraj and two gynaecologists, Dr. Julia Gray and Dr. Francis Ginsberg, as the respondent did not get her periods regularly between the months of April and October, 2001. They also visited Stamford Hospital in August, 2001 on the recommendation of Dr. Shanti Devaraj to get an ultrasound scan of respondents uterus. The report showed the presence of poly -ovarian cyst. The Gynaecologists told them that the cysts are a general phenomenon and melt away on their own, but only in some cases they are cancerous. After the respondent had her period in October, 2001, Dr. Julia Gray did tissue culture on 02 -11 -2001 and told them that it was not cancerous. Dr. Francis Ginsberg did an ultrasound scan on 07 -11 -2001 and told them that there was no trace of cyst after the period and told the respondent that her cycles would become normal again, but as more than eight weeks elapsed since her last period in October, 2001, she became suspicious to take an appointment with Dr. Julia Gray. Since Dr. Julia Gray was on vacation in December, 2001, they could get appointment only in the first week of January, 2002. Dr. Julia Gray did a pregnancy test on the respondent in the first week of January, 2002 and told them that the test came out with negative result. She prescribed a five -day course of medroxy - progeterone (provera) pills to induce periods in her. He was against the usage of pills and asked her to wait till it happens naturally, but she did not listen and took those pills from 13 -01 -2002 to 17 -01 -2002, but there was no effect till 27 -01 -2002, so they approached Dr. Julia Gray, who told them that she could not think of anything and asked them to contact Dr. Francis Ginsberg. When they called Dr. Francis Ginsberg on 28 -01 -2002, she asked the respondent to take a pregnancy test and call her back with the result of pregnancy test. The respondent had undergone pregnancy test on the morning of 29 -01 - 2002, and the test came out positive. The respondent started crying and thought that the pills might have affected the embryo and was worried about the condition of the embryo. She immediately called her mother and narrated everything, and his mother -in -law told the respondent that he might have bribed Dr. Julia Gray and might have influenced the doctor to give a wrong prescription to affect the respondents health and pregnancy, on which, he was shocked, as the respondent also began to accept her mothers notion that he might have influenced Dr. Julia Gray in giving her a wrong prescription. When both of them were worried about the embryos condition, his mother -in -law accused him of trying to prevent the pregnancy by influencing the doctor to give a wrong prescription, the respondent asked him to take legal action against Dr. Julia Gray, but he asked his wife to wait till they get medical reports about the condition of the embryo and told her that he would take legal action if the medical reports indicate the damage about the embryo due to the pills. The subsequent tests and ultrasound scan indicated a normal condition of the baby and no abnormalities were discovered. Despite the same, she went on persuading him to take legal action against Dr. Julia Gray. He told her that firstly, no damage could be established due to the pills, secondly, there was a 0.3% scope for failure of the pregnancy test conducted by Dr. Julia Gray, and thirdly, they were new to USA and have very little savings and they would not be able to bear any adverse outcome of the legal action, but she was not convinced. xxii) Since he did not show any interest and tried to evade the respondent, she then started making statements that her mother was right in accusing him of conspiring with the doctor to effect the respondent and their baby and she even made comparisons between him and others stating that any other person, in his situation, would have definitely taken legal action against the doctor, and that he was feared of taking legal action, but he feared that he might be indicted in bribing the doctors. He was deeply hurt and he was not allowed to be happy about the new addition to his life and since he wanted the respondent to be peaceful and happy to facilitate healthy growth of baby, he did not want to argue and silently tolerated the insults. The appellant states that he was working for Satyam Computer Services in USA at the client location of General Electric Capital Services, and since his contract with the client was due to expire on 31 -03 -2002, the Client Manager asked him in February, 2002 to look for other opportunities by telling him that there would not be any extension of contract beyond 30 -04 -2002, and he immediately informed his reporting Manager in Satyam about it and asked him to consider for new requirements and the reporting manager assured him that he would start looking for new opportunities but cautioned him that the chances of finding new opportunities were very bleak. Since he did not get any new opportunities in the following few weeks, he told the respondent in the second week of March, 2002, that his contract would be ending on 30 -04 -2002 and they may have to relocate to India in the first week of May, 2002, on which, she immediately wrote on a piece of paper that he wanted to kill her baby on which, he was devastated and could not express the pain that he felt when he read the paper. He tried his best to convince her, but she was not in a position to listen to him, thus, the relationship between them was strained. xxiii) In the third week of April, 2002, both of them approached Dr. Irene Komaransky, a Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, who did a detailed ultrasound scan of respondents womb and showed them various parts of the babys body on a monitor and explained about the growth and development of the baby and gave them measurements of babys limbs, head etc. He was excited and after returning home, he called his parents and started telling them about the ultrasound scan, and while he was talking to them, the respondent banged the doors and left the home angrily, on which, he felt dejected and disappointed at her behaviour. He completed the call and waited for his wifes return to home, and after she returned home, when he asked about her behaviour, she abused him for explaining the details of ultrasound scan to his parents and shouted at him that he should never tell anything about the baby to his parents, though he told her that they were all part of the family and it was their responsibility to share the good news with parents and making them happy, she shouted that she does not belong to the family and that his parents did not have any right to know about her and the baby, as they have not called and spoken to her after she became pregnant. He was upset and dejected, but he did not want to prolong the discussion, he left to his office. xxiv) As per recommended precautions, he bought a bath -mat for usage in the bath tub to prevent slipping in the bath tub, the respondent asked him not to lay the bath -mat as dirt might get accumulated in the grooves, making it difficult to clean the bath -mat, on which, he packed the bath mat and kept it in a closet. In May, 2002, the respondent asked him to clean the bath room, as some small soap pieces got stuck on a corner of the bath tub, when he told that he would clean bath room, but he could not clean it in the following few days, as he was busy at his office, she called him at his office and told that she slipped and almost fell in the bath room, he immediately took an appointment with the doctors and rushed to him and took her to the doctor. On scanning, the doctor told them that there was nothing to be concerned about, but after returning home, she accused him that he had purposefully planned to kill baby by sticking soap pieces on the bath tub, and that he had purposefully avoided cleaning the bath tub. He tried to remind her that they had been using the bath room for around two years and that on many previous occasions when the soap became very thin, it used to break into pieces and fall down in the tub and on all those occasions, most of the small soap pieces got washed away, but one or two pieces stuck to the bath tub. He told her that same thing had happened now and then and it was his mistake in not cleaning the tub and immediately cleaned the tub. She raised these issues several times and hurt him by saying that he had planned to kill the baby by purposefully sticking the soap pieces on the bath tub and raised the said issue even in her mothers presence in September, 2002, October, 2002 and November, 2002. He even told the Obstetrician/Gynaecologist Dr.Irene Komaransky in October, 2002 that he had purposefully stuck the soap pieces in the bath tub, and when he told the doctor that he had purchased the bath mat to prevent his wife from slipping, and that his wife only did not want to use the bath mat, she lied to the doctor saying that he had never bought any mat and that he was lying. He was devastated and could not understand as to why the respondent was lying and trying to project a negative picture on him. The doctor having understood that they were not getting along, asked them to consult and take counselling from a family psychiatrist. xxv) The appellant states that in June, 2002, he was shocked and annoyed when he saw his wifes maiden name on the book instead of his surname and states that she wanted to disassociate herself and the baby from him. xxvi) The appellant refers to such instances mostly touching manifestation of differences in their domestic life attributing something or other to her in the direction of such acts constituting cruelty. xxvii) The appellant alleges that after delivering a baby on 02 -09 -2002, the respondent told the doctor and the hospital staff in the operation theatre that her daughters name would be Udayasri for which he was shocked as she never mentioned that name to him before. xxviii) On the 5th day after delivery i.e., 06 -09 -2002 (Friday), his wife was discharged from the hospital along with baby. On the after -noon of 7th September, 2002 at around 3.00 P.M, the respondent having noticed blood in the babys mouth, immediately started shouting at him attributing that he had cut the babys tongue on which he was shocked and dumbfounded, and, though, he expected that his mother -in -law to intervene and pacify the respondent, but she did not intervene. Later, the on -call doctor explained that the blood could have resulted from any of the two causes: i) Presence of some residual blood in the baby, from the mothers womb. This happens when blood is not completely sucked from the babys mouth during the delivery process. ii) In most cases, nipples crack during the feeding process and babies suck blood from these cracks and spit out later. And that issue was consistently raised by the respondent during the moths of September, October, November and December, 2002 which hurt him. xxix) The appellant states that he had purchased a Video Camera to record his baby and since the baby was sleeping for most of the time in the hospital, he used to wait patiently for the baby to open eyes and then record her, and on the date of discharge from the hospital, first he recorded the hospital room in which they stayed, and while they were approaching the Car, he recorded the baby along with the nurse who was holding their baby on which, the respondent and his mother -in -law insulted and abused him on at least ten occasions during the months of September to December, 2002 and January, 2003 for recording the nurse. xxx) He states that he did not like the babys given name and wanted to give his baby a pet name of Geetha and whenever he began calling Geetha in September, 2002, the respondent and his mother -in -law used to laugh loudly and ridicule the name by saying Geetha, Peetha and Pitchi Geetha. xxxi) The appellant alleges that after the delivery he took the respondent to Gynaecologist for two post -natal visits, and during the first visit (around 15th October, 2002), he also accompanied the respondent into the doctors consulting room. As the respondent was weak, the doctor did some tests and told her that physically her body was normal and asked her if she was having any mental depression, on which, the respondent replied that she was having mental depression because of him, and that he was not feeding her properly and not taking proper care of her and the baby, on which he was shocked and explained the doctor, that these were just illusions coming out of the respondents negative thinking and attitude. The appellant states that he explained to the doctor about how the respondent accused him of cutting his babys tongue and how she accused him of bribing a doctor to give the respondent a wrong medicine and how the respondent refused to use a bath room mat that he bought for her protection during pregnancy. The Gynaecologist advised them to visit and take counselling from a family Psychiatrist and gave them the contact numbers of an Indian Psychiatrist, and after returning home, he called the psychiatrist for an appointment and informed the respondent about it, on which, she shouted at him saying that she did not have any mental problems and that she would not visit any psychiatrist and also shouted at him saying that he alone had mental problems and he alone should go and visit psychiatrist, which resulted in cancelling the appointment. Thereafter, he referred to certain other instances which are not that significant to advert to herein. xxxii) After referring to sundry domestic disputes, he alleges that he took a leave of 10 working days to drop his mother -in -law in India and arrived at Hyderabad on 26 -02 -2003, but neither his mother - in -law nor his father -in -law had the courtesy of thinking him for coming all the way from USA to drop his mother -in -law and, though, he stayed in India till 08 -03 -2003, they did not even call him during his nine days stay in India, nor did they invite him to their house. xxxiii) The appellant alleges that on the night of 17 -03 -2003 (Sunday), he was watching Television in living room and his wife was playing with the baby in the bed room and after playing for some time, she left the baby on the bed and went to the bath room, during which time, the baby suddenly rolled over from the bed and fell on the carpet and started crying, on which he rushed from the living room to pick up the baby and the respondent also rushed from the bath room and picked up the baby and started shouting at him that he was responsible for the babys fall by not taking a bigger home and that he should have stayed back in India and not returned to USA, and even she did not like him to touch the baby and continued to abuse him. He also states that she picked a baby bouncer seat to throw at him and he rushed towards her to stop her from throwing the bouncer but she swung the bouncer at him. He also tried to hold the baby bouncer and stop her, but her hand struck his neck and her bangles broke resulting in a small scratch on his neck. He states that the respondent locked herself in the bed room along with the baby and shouted that she was a widow and her husband died and the baby has no father and she repeated these words at least ten times. He also states that when he landed in India, his wife removed her Mangalsutra and dressed like a widow. xxxiv) In paragraph 102, he referred to comments alleged to have made at him by the respondent. xxxv) The appellant states that during April and May, 2003, whenever his friends came to his house or whenever the respondent made or received any telephone calls from his friends, she used to tell the friends that he (appellant) had no regard for her and her babys health and that he had purposefully planned to take her and the baby back to India to cause health problems to them. xxxvi) The appellant then referred to the acts of the respondent in not allowing him to take the baby and, thus, she hurt him. xxxvii) The appellant alleges that they left USA on 31 -05 -2003 and reached Hyderabad on 02 -06 -2003. His parents and the family friends have come to the Airport to receive them. His father -in -law and brother -in -law also came to the Air -port. When they (appellant and respondent) stepped out of the Airport, his parents invited the respondent to come to their house, on which, she said that she spent three years without seeing her mother and would like to go to her fathers house to see her mother first. Even, his parents requested her to come to their house and stay for two to three days and then go back to her parents house, but there is no response from her. His parents kept on asking her for about 15 minutes and went to the extent of asking her to spend just a few hours at their house and then return back to her parents house on the same day and in the same taxi. The respondent then called her mother on a mobile telephone and after speaking to her for a few minutes, went to a car brought by her father and sat in the car. He states that he has not let his parents know about the miserable time that he spent in USA, and they knew nothing about the insults and mental torture that he was subjected to. His parents came to the Airport hoping to receive them as a single family and take them home, but they were disappointed. His father -in -law also did not try to persuade the respondent and he just took the baby daughter and the respondent with him without informing him and without taking his permission and, till the date of filing of the petition, they have not even called the appellant and his parents and, thus, his in -laws separated him from his daughter for more than three months. xxxviii) In paragraph 115, he has given certain details of valuable items that were said to have given to the respondent and her family members since the time of marriage and while at Abroad also. He, therefore, sought dissolution of marriage by grant of decree of divorce.