K SUJATHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is illustrative of the fact that the pernicious custom of dowry, seemingly all pervasive, does not pass by leaving unaffected even highly educated women.

(2.) The petitioner, an young lady aged about 28 years, a junior advocate practicing in Srikakuiam town, has filed this application for issue of a writ of habeas corpus seeking the~ release of her husband Sri K. V. Uma-maheshwara Rao allegedly kept in illegal custody by his father, Sri K.V. Narasaiah, a practising advocate of Srikakulani, respondent No. 4. The petitioner and her husband Sri Umamaheswara Rao studied Law course together in Visakhapatnam from 1990 to 1992 and at that time, they came to know about each other which blossomed into love. Sri Umamaheswara Rao discontinued the Law course in 1993 as he got employment in a Public Sector Undertaking --National Thermal Power Corporation --at a place called Jhanoor in Bharooch District of Gujarai State. The petitioner claims that Sri Umamaheshwara Rao insisted upon her to marry him and because of mutual love, she agreed and the marriage was celebrated on 23-9-1993 at Bharooch in Gujarat State according to the Hindu custom. On the next day i.e., 24-9-1993, the marriage was registered Bharooch in the office of the Registrar of Marriages and a "memo of marriage" was also issued by that office. After the marriage, she returned to Kakinada where her parents were staying and her husband joined her in October, 1993 at Kakinada where they stayed together for a week. From Kakinada, they went to Srikakulam, the native place of Sri Umamaheshwara Rao, and stayed with his parents for two weeks. Her parents-in-law created difference between her and her husband since they entertained the evil idea of grabbing lakhs of rupees by way of dowry. She alleged that in the month of November, 1993 her husband was sent away to Gujarat by her father-in-law and thereafter, all her efforts to trace him proved futile. As she was staying in the house of her father-in-law, the latter brought in a peculiar proceeding -- O. S. No. 64 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam --seeking a permanent injunction restraining her from staying in the house alleging that she was a stranger to the family. When the application for temporary injunction in the said proceeding was dismissed by the District Munsif, he carried the matter in appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge, who allowed the same on erroneous grounds and the High Court of Andhra Pradcsh in a revision filed by the petitioner herein set aside the order of the learned District Judge. Her father-in-law succeeded in persuading her husband to file a suit --O. S. No. 164 of 1994 --on the file the V Civil Judge, Bharooch in Gujarat State for a declaration that no marriage has taken place between her and her husband. This was done by her father-in-law with the evil intention of securing more dowry for his son. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed O.P. No. 24 of 1994 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. She also filed an application for maintenance M. C. No. 24 of 1995 --in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam and an interim maintenance of Rs. 400.00 per month was granted but no payment was made. She asserted that although a number of cases are pending, her husband was run allowed to appear in any of the cases and the strongly believes that her parents-in-law are behind it '' and that her husband was in illegal custody. Even the telephone connection at the house in Srikakulam was got disconnected by her father-in-law with a view, to preventing her husband from talking to her. Her father-in-law also was not allowing his son to come to Srikakulam lest he should join her and defeat his design of getting more dowry. If her husband was produced in the court, she claimed, all the facts would come to light.

(3.) On 26-12-1995 Sri Umamaheswara Rao, the husband of the petitioner, was impleaded as respondent No. 5 and in order to enable him to attend the court, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000.00with the Registrar of this Court to meet his expenses as a doubt was expressed whether he had enough money to come to Hyderabad. Subsequently, it turned out that he was earning above Rs. 8.000.00 per month. The statements of the fifth respondent Sri Umamaheswara Rao and the petitioner were recorded in the chambers by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (M.N. Rao, J.) was a party, on 1-2-1996.