THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1142 of 2001 Dated:- 10th August, 2011 Between:- Bodu Krishna Murthy …Appellant AND Bodu Vasantha …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1142 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2001 passed in O.P.No.188 of 1995 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant herein seeking divorce under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed. 2. The appellant – husband is the petitioner and the respondent – wife is the respondent before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 3. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 20.04.1990 as per the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they lived together at Chennur, where the petitioner was working as a teacher. They were blessed with a daughter on 05.03.1991 who is named after as ‘Sai Ravali’ and one son on 23.04.1992 whose name is ‘Sai Kumar’. From 08.03.1993, the petitioner and respondent have been living separately due to the differences that arose between them. Their daughter is residing with the petitioner and the son is living with the respondent. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 19.09.1994 in Ex.A.1, to which, the respondent gave reply dated 22.09.1994 in Ex.A.2. The petitioner also gave reply dated 17.10.1994 in Ex.A.3 to the said reply notice of the respondent, to which, again the respondent gave reply dated 08.11.1994 in Ex.A.4. Then, the petitioner filed the impugned O.P. seeking divorce alleging that the respondent has treated him with cruelty. Subsequently, the respondent had lodged a police complaint which resulted in filing of a criminal case against the petitioner and the charge sheet is marked as Ex.A.5. FIR in Crime No.92 of 1995 of Police Station, Hasanparthy, is marked as Ex.A.6 and the judgment and the decree in C.C.No.530 of 1995 is marked as Ex.A.7. 4. The specific allegations made by the petitioner are that the respondent herself revealed that she had unwillingly accepted for the marriage with the petitioner at the instance of her father and that the petitioner is not good looking and has black complexion. It is his further case that though he intended to send away the respondent to her parents house, but at the instance of his parents, he tolerated the respondent; he and the respondent had lead mechanical life; the respondent used to allege that his family is just like a tribal family; while they were residing at Chennur, one Telugu Desam Party leader, who was staying in the Party Office situated in front of their house, used to come to their house and the respondent developed acquaintance with the said person. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent was insulting him and subsequently left his company in September, 1990, and did not return; he had learnt that the respondent gave birth to a female child on 05.03.1991; in July, 1991, the parents of the respondent had sent the respondent to his house while he was working at Easgoan; the respondent was calling him as black dog. His further case is that when his friend – Srinivas and his mother – Venkatamma used to visit his house, the respondent was quarrelling with him to avoid the visit of said Venkatamma; she had attributed illicit intimacy between him and said Venkatamma; in March, 1991, his parents invited them to spend a few days on the occasion of birthday of their second Sai Kumar and on that occasion, the respondent abused him and his other family members alleging that he was having illicit intimacy with his own mother and went away to her parents house and since then she never returned to his house; all his efforts to bring the respondent back to his house from her parents house failed; after issuing legal notice, he had filed a petition seeking divorce. 5. The respondent contested the matter and filed counter and denied the material allegations made by the petitioner. The sum and substance of the counter averments are that the petitioner is extremely suspicious; while going out, the petitioner used to put broom sticks in the gap of the doors and used to verify whether those sticks had fallen down, so as to ascertain whether any person entered into the house in his absence; the petitioner was harassing her to bring valuable goods, ornaments; he used to harass her with an intention to squeeze money from her parents; her father was not in a position to comply with such demands; the petitioner and his mother necked her out form their house at Kazipet and sent her to her parents house in and around July, 1990, when she was pregnant; the petitioner and his mother used to beat her and subsequently, she was not allowed to join their family till her daughter became five months old; even while she and the petitioner were living separately at Easgaon, the petitioner had never shown any affection or love towards her; she became pregnant for the second time and delivered a male child on 23.04.1992 at Hanumakonda; her life became miserable due to the attitude of the petitioner; in March, 1993, once again, she and her son were necked out by the petitioner and his mother from their house at Kazipet and she is forced to live with her parents and with her son; while she and the petitioner were residing at Easgoan, the petitioner, under the pretext of making her to appear for matriculation examination, brought her to Kazipet and on the next day, he beat her mercilessly; then the petitioner and his mother dragged her out of their house holding her hair which resulted in plucking out her hair from the scalp; she was necked out of their house and was not allowed to enter into their house and however, the people of the locality arranged an auto and sent her to her parents house and since then, she is compelled to live with her parents; though she made several efforts to join the petitioner’s company, the petitioner blatantly refused to take her back; she is willing to join the petitioner, if at all, security is given to her. 6. Evidence was let in. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no documentary evidence was adduced except examining herself as R.W.1, besides examining R.Ws.2 and 3. 7. The Court below, on appreciation of oral and documentary on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty and, accordingly, dismissed the petition, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before us as appellant. 8. On 18.12.2009, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, though none appeared for the respondent, referred the matter to the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, for conciliation. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, through his letter bearing No.872/HCLSC/2010, dated 07.05.2010, informed that though notices were sent to both the parties for four times, they did not appear before him and the mediation could not be done. 9. The main contention of Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Court below erred in holding that the ingredients of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), have not been proved; there is no proper appreciation of evidence on record; the Court below failed to observe that the respondent had initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner had to face criminal proceedings and that itself amounts to treating the petitioner with cruelty; since 1993 onwards, the respondent had been living separately and the same amounts to willful desertion. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that no interference is required. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s case is not consistent and that he failed to prove that the respondent had ill-treated him. 11. In view of the above rival claims, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are (1) whether the petitioner had proved that the respondent treated him with cruelty; and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The well settled legal position is that the petitioner has to stand or fall on his own case and he cannot take much advantage from the infirmities in the case of the respondent. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent developed dislike towards him had been and criticizing his black complexion. The second allegation is that the respondent developed acquaintance with one Telugu Desam Party leader whose office was situated in front of his house. The third allegation is that the respondent herself had left the petitioner’s house without any reasonable cause. The fourth allegation is that the respondent filed criminal cases resulting in arrest of the petitioner and the same amounts to treating the petitioner with cruelty under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1. According to him, the respondent expressed her view that she married the petitioner at the instance of her father and that he is not a match to her in personality and complexion. Ex.A.1 is the legal notice dated 19.09.1994 issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent. The contents of Ex.A.1 go to show that the petitioner has not made any such allegations in Ex.A.1 legal notice. It is not the case of the petitioner in Ex.A.1 legal notice that the respondent had expressed any view that her marriage was performed against her will or at the instance of her father. It is also not his case that the respondent used to criticize his personality or complexion. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.2 – his father, on this aspect, cannot be accepted on their face value. It is also the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent proposed abortion when she became pregnant on the ground that the children may also born ugly like the petitioner. A reading of the petition averments reveals that the petitioner had not made any such allegation in his petition. It is also his allegation that after giving birth to the daughter in March, 1991, the respondent refused to join him on the ground that the petitioner was working in tribal area. There is no such allegation in Ex.A.1 legal notice. Admittedly, the respondent joined the petitioner when their daughter became three months old while the petitioner was residing at Easgoan. Moreover, in Ex.A.1 – legal notice, the petitioner had categorically stated that the respondent’s relationship with him was cordial. His only allegation in Ex.A.1 is that in March, 1992, she went to her parents’ house promising to return back within a fortnight, but she did not return back. Except this allegation, no other allegation has been made in Ex.A.1 – legal notice. Therefore, the entire version of P.W.1 (the petitioner) appears to be a subsequent invention to justify his stand. If at all the version of the petitioner is true, the respondent would not have lived with the petitioner as far more than two years and gave birth to two children. 13. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had been suspecting her character and used to harass her on that ground. However, the respondent has also not referred in her reply to the legal notice issued on her behalf that the petitioner was suspecting her character. Of course, she had stated that the petitioner and his mother had made her life horrible. Her main case is that after she gave birth to her son and on the occasion of the second birthday celebrations of her daughter, when she went to Kazipet, the petitioner and his mother beat her and forcibly plucked off her hair and did not allow her to entire into their house and consequently, she was forced to return to her parents house. In her reply notice, besides making allegation that the petitioner was harassing her demanding valuable articles, it is also alleged that the petitioner was also having suspicious temperament and beating her on one pretext or other. 14. As seen from the averments made in the petition itself, it is clear that the petitioner was suspecting the character of the respondent. In Para 10 of the petition averments, the petitioner has specifically alleged that there is a Telugu Desam party office in front of his house and that one of the party leaders used to stay in that office always and used to come to their house for drinking water and the respondent developed acquaintance with the said person and expressed her dislike towards the petitioner. This allegation itself is sufficient to show that the petitioner has suspicious mind. It has to be seen that in spite of this attitude of the petitioner, the respondent had subsequently joined the petitioner at Easgoan after the delivery of their second child and it is on the occasion of the second birthday celebrations of their daughter at Kazipet on 07.03.1993 that the respondent was beaten and necked out of their house. A reading of the entire material gives an impression that it is due to suspicious mind of the petitioner and his attitude and his behavior towards the respondent the respondent was compelled to live with her parents. The petitioner himself admitted in his evidence that till the respondent applied for maintenance to herself and her son, he did not send any amount to the respondent towards maintenance. This itself shows his attitude towards his wife and minor children. 15. We have also gone through the evidence of other witnesses. Admittedly, P.W.2 is the father of the petitioner. He was also working as teacher. Admittedly, P.W.2 was not residing with the petitioner either at Chennur or at Easgoan. According to P.W.2, it is the petitioner who had informed him that the respondent did not like him and his colour. Thus, his evidence is nothing but hearsay evidence. According to him, when the respondent did not join the petitioner, the parents of the respondent brought her to Kagaznagar, where the petitioner was working, and the respondent touched the feet of her husband (petitioner) and also the feet of himself and his wife and stated that she would not use harsh words against the petitioner. The respondent, of course, had denied this incident. Even if the version of P.W.2 is believed as true, it only shows her character and the respondent wanted to join the petitioner and prostrated before her in-laws and her husband. This cannot be treated as a circumstance to hold that the respondent is at fault rather it shows that the respondent had reconciled to live with the petitioner. On the incident that is alleged to have happened on the occasion of the second birthday celebrations of the daughter of the petitioner, P.W.2 is not inclined to talk about the incident. He deposed that he does not remember whether he attended the said birthday celebrations or not. He has also deposed that he was not present when the respondent left their house at Kazipet. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 does not help the petitioner. 16. P.W.3 is a friend of P.W.2, who is also working as teacher. He deposed that he mediated between the parties and attended the panchayat, wherein, the respondent confessed that she is at fault. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 is also not much helpful to the petitioner. 17. The respondent herself was examined as R.W.1 and her father was examined as R.W.2. R.W.1 has categorically deposed how the petitioner suspected her character and beat her. She has also narrated the incident that occurred on 07.03.1993 at Kazipet. According to her, on that day, when she was taking food, the petitioner and his mother beat her with chappal and caught hold of her tuft and dragged with such a force that her hair came off out of her scalp. It is also her case that they had thrown her out of their house and did not allow her to enter into their house. According to her, with the help of the students of the locality, she went to her parents’ house. 18. Coming to the aspect of filing of the criminal cases by the respondent against the petitioner, it is a fact that the respondent filed criminal cases against the petitioner resulting in prosecution of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him in those criminal cases. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner had been acquitted of the charges leveled against him in the said criminal cases, it has to be held that the allegations leveled against him are proved to be false and, therefore, the acts of the respondent in initiating criminal proceedings and making baseless false allegations amounts to cruelty. We are not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appreciation of the evidence in a criminal case and the appreciation of the evidence in a civil case have different standards. As far as the criminal case is concerned, the prosecution has to prove the charges and the accused will be entitled to reasonable doubt. There may be many reasons for acquitting the accused in a criminal case such as delay in reporting the matter to the police, laches on the part of the investigating officer or lacunas in investigation or material witnesses turning hostile or non-examination of material witnesses etc, whereas a civil case, the standard of proof is on different footing. The issues will be decided on the basis of probabilities. Strict proof, as required in criminal cases or the principles of giving benefit of reasonable doubt etc., will not apply in civil cases. Thus, merely because a person has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him in a criminal case, it does not mean that all the allegations made in a criminal case are utterly false. 19. The second aspect is that whether mere initiation of criminal proceedings against a husband by a wife amounts to cruelty. When a woman is subjected to harassment for dowry or when the acts of the husband constitute an offence, a wife has every right to initiate criminal proceedings against her husband alleging dowry harassment and in fact, it is her legitimate right to do so. Similarly, claiming maintenance or filing of a case under Section 494 IPC when her husband re-marries during her life time are also the legal remedies available to a wife as a right given to her under the relevant statutes. 20. What is to be seen is who is at fault and who is responsible for the separation of husband and the wife at the initial stage. If the allegations reveal that the wife was harassed and was compelled to live with her parents, then, it cannot be said that mere initiation of criminal proceedings by a wife amounts to treating the husband with cruelty. Of course, where, in a case, on appreciation of entire evidence, it appears that there is no basis for initiation of criminal cases and all the allegations made in that case are utterly false and proved to be false and when the Court comes to a conclusion that false complaint has been given with a view to harass the husband and his family members without any basis, then the Court may take that circumstance also into consideration to decide whether the acts of the wife amounts to cruelty or not. Thus, we are of the view that mere initiation of criminal proceedings against the husband by a wife cannot be treated as an act of cruelty unless it is independently proved that all those allegations are utterly false and levelled against the husband to harass him. 21. After going through the entire material on record, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out his case against the respondent and failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty. Therefore, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. ____________________ Justice V. Eswaraiah ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 10th August, 2011 Bvv