Case: Kistamma Vs. Dr. H. T. Vira Reddy

from the record the form of the question and answer given by the witness. Failure on the part of the presiding Judge and the lawyer for Dr. Reddy to obtain a clarification is of some importance. We have carefully read the record of the evidence and we are of the view that the evidence of this witness is vague and unsatisfactory, and apart from the statement made by him in cross-examination the testimony itself is such that no reliance can be placed upon it. 8. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the only independent witnesses whose testimony was accepted by the High Court as corroborating the case of Dr. Reddy. In our view their testimony cannot be used to support the case of Dr. Reddy. 9. Dr. Reddy deposed that on November 17, 1957, Kistamma left the matrimonial home and never returned thereafter. But Dr. Reddy is highly interested in the result of the litigation. It would be difficult to rely upon his bare testimony unsupported by strong corroborative evidence. 10. There are certain circumstances which clearly support the contention of Kistamma that Dr. Reddyâ€™s case is not true. In the "notice" served on May 28, 1959, through a lawyer there was no reference to the claim that the child born of Kistamma in December, 1958, was illegitimate. It was stated in the "notice" that Kistamma was "guilty of acts of antagonism and violence deliberately intended to cause annoyance and misery so as to render Dr. Reddyâ€™s life one of abject misery". It was further stated in the "notice" that while Dr. Reddy was considering the question of getting a judicial separation from kistamma on grounds of cruelty, Kistamma "suddenly walked out of his house in November, 1957, after creating a regrettable scene before some very respectable members of the public, other patients and members of his staff, with bag and baggage" swearing never to see him alive or return to him and "had not both red to have any manner of contact with him till that date". It is difficult to believe that if it was the case of Dr. Reddy at that stage that the child born of Kistamma in December, 1958, was not his child, he would have, when he was seeking to give intimation of a proposed proceeding for divorce, failed to mention prominently the only ground available to him on which he could apply for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11. Mr. Gokhale on behalf of Dr. Reddy submitted that there were certain other circumstances which supported the case of Dr. Reddy. Counsel relied upon the circumstances that there was no correspondence between the spouses after they separated; that no interest was taken by Dr. Reddy or other members of his family in the child born of Kistamma; that Dr. Reddy was informed of the birth of the child three days after the birth; that no information was given to the father of Dr. Reddy who was residing only at a distance of 18 miles from Bellary where the child was born that no invitations were sent for the namakaran ceremony and other ceremonies of the child; and that when Kistamma left the matrimonial home Dr. Reddy did not accompany her to the Railway Station nor did he make any arrangements for providing a conveyance to her for going to the Railway Station. It is however accepted that there was correspondence between the husband and wife, but the correspondence has not been produced. In any case the relations between the husband and wife, were even on the case of Dr. Reddy severely strained, and absence of correspondence cannot support the case that Kistamma must have left the matrimonial home on November 17, 1957, and not in August, 1958. It is true that there is a delay of about three days in giving telegraphic information to Dr. Reddy about the birth of the child. Having regard to the strained relations between the husband and wife no inference may be drawn from that circumstance. Some reliance was sought to be placed upon the form of the telegram, but unless it be shown that the telegram was drafted by the sender, reference to Kistamma in the telegram "as your wife" will not, in our judgment, justify any adverse inference. The conduct of Dr. Reddy in not taking any interest in the child and not accompanying his wife to the Railway Station is also attributable to the strained relations between the husband and wife. Again it may be noticed that it was the case of Dr. Reddy that Kistamma was accompanied by her brother and his wife. There is no clear evidence on the record that any formal namakaran ceremony or other ceremonies took place. We do not think that these circumstances by themselves are sufficient to establish the case of Dr. Reddy that Kistamma left the matrimonial home on November 17, 1957, as alleged. We are of the view that no case was made out for the High Court to interfere with the conclusion of the Trial Court as confirmed by Jagadisan, J. 12. Counsel contended that in any case Dr. Reddy was entitled to a decree for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. But no case was made out in the Courts below that Kistamma had deserted Dr. Reddy for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Dr. Reddy went to trial only on a case arising under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act. Again, if it be accepted that Kistamma left the matrimonial home in August, 1958, the petition was clearly filed within two years of the date of departure of Kistamma, and the petition was not maintainable under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. We may observe that in so stating we are not, in any manner, accepting the suggestion made by counsel for Dr. Reddy that Kistamma had deserted her husband when she left the matrimonial home.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. Normally in an appeal with special leave, this Court does not enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence. But, in our judgment, this is one of those exceptional cases in which departure from the normal practice is called for. The High Court was of the view that the Trial Court and Jagdisan, J., had misread the evidence and had on that account reached an erroneous conclusion. for Kistamma contends that the High Court had misread the evidence and has relied upon several matters of importance which were never deposed to by the witnessesThe witness deposed to matters which took place nearly three years before the date of his examination in Court, and it is difficult to believe that he could have remembered either the occasion or the conversation which he had with Kistamma. No reason was suggested as to why Kistamma should go in the company of her brother and her brotherâ€™s wife and proclaim that she was leaving her husbandâ€™s house. We agree with the Trial Court that the testimony of the witness is unreliableThe testimony of this witness, even if it be accepted, does not prove that Kistamma had left the matrimonial home in November 1957. There is no statement of the witnesses that she had any travelling kit with her or that she took any conveyance for going to the Railway Station. The words "went away" with her brother cannot justify an inference that she abandoned the matrimonial home as alleged by Dr. Reddy. The statement made inn about what Dr. Reddy had told him is hearsay. The High Court was of the view that the comment made by Jagadisan, J., "is hardly fair to this witness". They observed that if the evidence is "properly read and not misquoted or misread" it is clear that the witness stated inn that in November 1957, Dr. Reddy had told him that Kistamma quarrelled with him, (Dr. Reddy), and had left his house. We have carefully gone through the evidence and we are unable to hold that the view taken by Jagadisan, J., was not correctThe statement is somewhat obscure and the obscurity must have been apparent to the Judge and the lawyer, but the lawyer for Dr. Reddy did not attempt to clarify this answer given in answer to a question put in, nor did the learned Judge attempt to do so. The judgment of the Trial Court was delivered by Mr. P. Lakshmanan, Additional Judge, who had heard the evidence of this witness, and he understood the statement of the witness to mean that Kistamma had left the matrimonial home in 1958. He also made no attempt to seek a clarification of the statement. Apparently, Jagadisan, J., also read the statement of the witness in the manner in which it was understood by the Trial Judge. The High Court tried to reconstruct the form of the question and the answer given by the witness and observed that it was "hardly fair to read from the admission made by the witness that Kistamma had left the house in 1958". The testimony of this witness has not been recorded in the form of questions and answers. It is impossible to reconstruct from the record the form of the question and answer given by the witness. Failure on the part of the presiding Judge and the lawyer for Dr. Reddy to obtain a clarification is of some importance. We have carefully read the record of the evidence and we are of the view that the evidence of this witness is vague and unsatisfactory, and apart from the statement made by him inn the testimony itself is such that no reliance can be placed upon it8. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are the only independent witnesses whose testimony was accepted by the High Court as corroborating the case of Dr. Reddy. In our view their testimony cannot be used to support the case of Dr. Reddy9. Dr. Reddy deposed that on November 17, 1957, Kistamma left the matrimonial home and never returned thereafter. But Dr. Reddy is highly interested in the result of the litigation. It would be difficult to rely upon his bare testimony unsupported by strong corroborative evidence10. There are certain circumstances which clearly support the contention of Kistamma that Dr. Reddyâ€™s case is not true. In the "notice" served on May 28, 1959, through a lawyer there was no reference to the claim that the child born of Kistamma in December, 1958, was illegitimate. It was stated in the "notice" that Kistamma was "guilty of acts of antagonism and violence deliberately intended to cause annoyance and misery so as to render Dr. Reddyâ€™s life one of abject misery". It was further stated in the "notice" that while Dr. Reddy was considering the question of getting a judicial separation from kistamma on grounds of cruelty, Kistamma "suddenly walked out of his house in November, 1957, after creating a regrettable scene before some very respectable members of the public, other patients and members of his staff, with bag and baggage" swearing never to see him alive or return to him and "had not both red to have any manner of contact with him till that date". It is difficult to believe that if it was the case of Dr. Reddy at that stage that the child born of Kistamma in December, 1958, was not his child, he would have, when he was seeking to give intimation of a proposed proceeding for divorce, failed to mention prominently the only ground available to him on which he could apply for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage ActIt is however accepted that there was correspondence between the husband and wife, but the correspondence has not been. In any case the relations between the husband and wife, were even on the case of Dr. Reddy severely strained, and absence of correspondence cannot support the case that Kistamma must have left the matrimonial home on November 17, 1957, and not in August, 1958. It is true that there is a delay of about three days in giving telegraphic information to Dr. Reddy about the birth of the child. Having regard to the strained relations between the husband and wife no inference may be drawn from that circumstance. Some reliance was sought to be placed upon the form of the telegram, but unless it be shown that the telegram was drafted by the sender, reference to Kistamma in the telegram "as your wife" will not, in our judgment, justify any adverse inference. The conduct of Dr. Reddy in not taking any interest in the child and not accompanying his wife to the Railway Station is also attributable to the strained relations between the husband and wife. Again it may be noticed that it was the case of Dr. Reddy that Kistamma was accompanied by her brother and his wife. There is no clear evidence on the record that any formal namakaran ceremony or other ceremonies took place. We do not think that these circumstances by themselves are sufficient to establish the case of Dr. Reddy that Kistamma left the matrimonial home on November 17, 1957, as alleged. We are of the view that no case was made out for the High Court to interfere with the conclusion of the Trial Court as confirmed by Jagadisan, JBut no case was made out in the Courts below that Kistamma had deserted Dr. Reddy for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Dr. Reddy went to trial only on a case arising under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act. Again, if it be accepted that Kistamma left the matrimonial home in August, 1958, the petition was clearly filed within two years of the date of departure of Kistamma, and the petition was not maintainable under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act. We may observe that in so stating we are not, in any manner, accepting the suggestion made by counsel for Dr. Reddy that Kistamma had deserted her husband when she left the matrimonial home.