AP High court judgement suggesting to make section 498a bailble and compoundable

2002 (4) ALT 592 (D.B)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

B. S. A Swamy and Dr. G. Yethirajulu, JJ
A. A. O. No. 1039 of 2001-Decided on 9-7-2002

Saritha V. R. Ramchandra

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, SECTION 13- Divorce-Appeal by wife against dismissal of her petition by family court-Complaint of wife being that she was not treated properly by her mother-in-law during her stay at the house of parent-in-law at New Delhi-She has no complaint against her husband-Husband offered to come to Hyderabad and live with her-She and her father were adamant and not agreeable to any reasonable suggestions made by court and husband except divorce-attempts made by court to save marriage by requiring both of them to live together in a Hotel for a week in city and later for another week at a holiday resort outside Hyderabad to settle their differences amicable failed-She was jovial with husband during the said period and had led conjugal life with him at holiday resort-She had not expressed any problem to lead marital life-Yet she wants divorce and nothing but divorce- What was in her mind not disclosed-When she was asked to appear before a psychiatrist, she did not appear-Husband not agreeable to give divorce by mutual consent-He expressed that he would wait for her retrieval in spite of ill treatment shown by her-Appeal by wife in the circumstances of the case dismissed as there are no grounds for granting divorce. (Para 3)

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Section 498-A-Offence of Cruelty- Misuse of the beneficial provision-Wife who filed a petition for divorce filed a criminal case against husband and his entire family-Conduct of appellant. Wife showing that she being at fault wants to misuse the process of law and harass her husband and his family members for the sin of marrying her-In spite of husband expressed magnanimity towards her without ill-will and extended his arm to lead a happy marital life, she was adamant and did not agree even though she has nothing to say against him and even after leading conjugal life with him for seven days in a jovial mood with him when they were sent in a holiday resort by the court for a week to save the marriage- Judges expressed anguish over the attitude of some of the educated women and resorting to proceedings under Section 498-A, IPC) intended to save women from unscrupulous husbands-Suggestion therefore made to Law Commission and Parliament either to continue the provision Section 498-A I the same form or to make the offence a non-cognizable one and a bailable one to save innocent husbands and their men from harassment by some of the ill-educated women by misusing the provision. (Paras 6 and 7)

Mr. C. V. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. M. Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Respondent

Judgement
(per B.S.A Swamy, J.)

1. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P N. 58 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad. She filed the said O.P. seeking for divorce from the respondent who is her husband, on various grounds. After full trial, the Family Court found that she could not prove any one of the allegations levelled against the respondent, and, therefore, dismissed the said O.P. Aggrieved by the said order; this C.M.A. was filed by the wife.

2. Having seen the age of the parties, we summoned both of them to find out the real cause for their differences. The appellant could not say anything except that her mother-in-law did not treat her properly during her stay at New Delhi. On the other hand, the father of the respondent who accompanied the respondent categorically stated that they belonged to a traditional family where divorce was unknown and that if the marriage can be saved they are prepared to send the respondent to Hyderabad, the place of the appellant, to live with her. Even then the appellant and her father who seems to be an engineer were adamant and they are not agreeable to any of the reasonable suggestions made by the Courts as well as her husband except for divorce.

3. Without losing our hope we directed both the parties to live in a hotel for one week and try to settle their differences amicably, if possible. Though the respondent instantly agreed to stay at Hyderabad by canceling the ticket already reserved for New Delhi, the appellant agreed to go along with him to the hotel reluctantly. After expiry of the time both parties appeared before this court. The respondent informed the Court that the appellant was spending time jovially during daytime but going to her house in the night-time. The appellant having admitted this fact bluntly informed the Court, that she was not interested in having any marital relationship with the respondent. In fact in the Court itself, she was very jovial with the respondent and talking to him very nicely. Practically we do not find any reasons for the animosity she developed against the respondent. Once again, to save the marriage we directed both parties to live in any holiday resort outside Hyderabad for one more week and report back. Again when they attended before this Court, both the parties admitted that they enjoyed life to the fullness satisfaction and absolutely she did not face any problem during the intercourse. In fact she had also taken him to her parent’s house. This indicates that there is o problem to them to lead marital life but the appellant t wants divorce and nothing but divorce. Eve after leading conjugal life with the respondent when the appellant said like this, we were sure that there was some thing in her mind, which she did not disclose to us. Hence we directed the appellant to appear before a psychiatrist. In fact, we talked to him and fixed the appointment for them but she did not choose to appear before him. We tried to find out from the respondent whether he was agreeable to give divorce by mutual consent. He told us I so many word that he was not prepared to give divorce and he would wait till her retrieval. It shows the anxiety the respondent has to save the marriage and the affection he had towards the appellant in-spite of the ill-treatment shown by the appellant. In fact himself and his father were agreeable for any proposal made by this Court or the appellant to save the marriage. But, the appellant and her parent did not agree for any proposal except divorce.

4. Hence we have not option except to dismiss this appeal as there are absolutely no grounds for granting divorce and leave the parties to work out their remedies.

5. During hearing, we came to know that the appellant filed a criminal case against the respondent and hid entire family under Section 498-A I. P. C. from the conduct of the appellant we no hesitation to hold that the appellant being at fault wants to misuse the process of law and harass the respondent and his family members for the sin if marrying her. We never expected that women would be of such a character in this country. Even though the respondent expressed so much magnanimity towards her, without ill-will or rancor and extended his arm to lead a happy marital life, the appellant just threw away the offer with her little finger. The criminal court shall take up the case for trial on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same within one month of the date of receipt of this order. In the event of the dismissal of the criminal case as a foisted one ad the allegations are far from truth, it is always open to the respondent to take appropriate criminal actions on the appellant as well as her parents from implicating them in a false case and making them to come to all the way from New Delhi to Hyderabad to attend the Courts.

6. This court would like to go on record that for nothing the educated women are approaching the courts for divorce and resorting to proceedings against their in-laws under Section 498-A I.P.C. implicating not only the husbands but also their family members whether they are in India or abroad. This is nothing but abuse of beneficial provisions intended to save the women from unscrupulous husbands. But it has taken a reverse trend now. In some type of case this type of action is coming as a formidable hurdle in reconciliation efforts made by either well meaning people or the courts and the sanctity attached to the marriage I Hindu Religion and the statutory mandate that the courts shall always try to save the marriage through conciliatory efforts till the last, are being buried-deep neck.

7. it is for the Law Commission and the Parliament either to continue that provision (Section 498-A I.P.C) in the same form or to make the offence a non-cognizable one and a bailable one so that the ill—educated women of this country and their parents do not misuse the provision, to harass innocent people for the sin of contacting marriage with egoistic women. We have no hesitation to hold that if this situation is continued and longer the institution of marriage and the principle one man for woman will vanish into their air.

8. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.