K. Sujatha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
family - withdrawal of petition - article 226 of constitution of india and section 13 of hindu marriage act, 1955 - petition filed by women for issuance of habeas corpus against her in laws - contended that her husband illegally detained by her father-in-law who demanded dowry from her - during pendency of petition her husband appeared in court against her - stated he never married to petitioner - during proceedings petitioner passed through many hardships - she made request before court for withdrawal of petition on payment of 2 lakhs by in laws - request accepted and she allowed to withdraw her petition - in-laws directed to pay compensation to her. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle held, it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under workmens compensation act. the insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of section 149 of the act. the right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under workmens compensation act, but also under benevolent provisions under section 166 and 167 of the m.v. act. the right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the workmens compensation act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under section 167 of the act to choose either of the two forum. the only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under section 147 of the act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. in the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under section 167 of the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - 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. 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. , degree studied law for two years and dis-continuing the same, joined the ntpc and his office and residential addresses are well known to the petitioner. sri umamaheshwara rao, and the material on record clearly establish the indescribable trauma to which the petitioner was subjected to, the mean and debased manipulatory tactics adopted by sri umamaheshwara rao and the crafty and consummate attitude of the forth respondent, sri k. viewed from a strictly technical point of view, eschewing the facts established and the realities unmistakably focussing on the tragedy that befell the petitioner, a highly educated and intelligent young lady advocate, it may not perhaps be impermissible to close the matter and leave the parties to seek reliefs in the appropriate for a. a person studying ii year of the law course applying for a decent job in a public sector undertaking and dis-continu-ing the legal studies is perfectly understandable in these days when the prospects of public employment are bleak. ..the petitioner andher sister threatened to commit suicide if i do not mary the petitioner'.clearly reflects the anxiety on his part to hide the truth and project an utterly unbelievable falsehood. 9. the petitioner's statement is that when she was studying the law course in vishaka-patnam, sri umamaheswara rao, who was her class-mate fell in love with her and coincidentally as they happen to belong to the same caste, she reciprocated and they developed intimate relations. this part of her statement isfully established by documentary evidence, the letter dated 20th february, 1993 written, by sri umaniaheshwara rao to the petitioner addressing her as 'dear suja' refers to his intimate acquaintance with her and the fact that their intimacy was well known to his relations and her relations. it contains the signatures of the petitioner and sri umamaheshwara rao as well as one sri p. the marriage certificate filed before us amply establishes the version of the petitioner as to the facturn of the marriage that took place in bharooch on 23-9-1993 and its subsequent registration on 24-9-1993. 11. in order to overcome the hard reality of his having married the petitioner, sri umamaheshwara rao invented a totallyincredible story by stating that he was pressurised to marry the petitioner -she and her sister threatened to commit suicide if he did not marry the petitioner. it is absolutely unbelievable thai an young lady, an utter stranger to a place like bharooch could muster courage to go there and pressurise a 29 year old man, a fairly well settled employee of a public sector undertaking drawing a salary of rs. sri umamaheshwara rao addressed a letter on 26-9-1993 from bharooch to the petitioner to her kakinada address in which he had clearly mentioned that they both should start a new life and the petitioner should earn good name in the society as his wife and that should make him proud of her. at one place, he mentioned :you are my better half; 13. it appears to us that the marriage between the petitioner and sri umamaheshwara rao failed solely because of the insist ence of sri k. 14. we are satisfied that humanly it is not possible for any woman enmeshed in adversities like petitioner to retain mental poise and continue the battle on several fronts. from out of the hard earned money of my parents, already a good part of it was spent towards dowry,marriage and litigation expenses. 2 lakhs, i would treat the whole thing as a bad dream and look forward to a new chapter in life'.we were surprised that a meagre sum of rs.orderm.n. rao, j. 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 nextday 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 of1994 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/- per month was granted but no payment was made. she asserted that although a number of cases arepending, 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/-with 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/- 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 1-2-1996.4. sri k. v. narasaiah the fourth res-pondent, in his counter-affidavit sworn on i 24-11-1995 has stated that sri umamaheshwara rao, his son, after obtaining m.b.a., degree studied law for two years and dis-continuing the same, joined the ntpc and his office and residential addresses are well known to the petitioner. in the cases filed by her, she got notices issued to sri uma- maheshw'ara rao and the same were received by him. he denied the allegation that he was interested in grabbing lakhs, of rupees as dowry. the alleged marriage that took place on 23-9-1993 between his ion and the petitioner at bharooch was not true and that the validity of the said marriage is pending decision in a court in bharooch. his son is employed in bharooch and the allegation that he sent him away in order to prevent him from meeting the petitioner was not true. he also swore to two additional counter affidavits, one on 27-10-1996 and the other on 25-11-1996. in the former affidavit dated 27-10-1996, sri narasaiah, after referring to the maintenance petition m. c. no. 24 of 1995 filed in the court of the judicial first class magistrate, srikakulam by the petitioner, stated that she did not pursue the same and a memo was filed' into the court on 5-6-1996 by her advocate stating that the same may be dismissed as not pressed and accordingly the same was dismissed. he also averred that he filed o. s. no. 61 of 1994 in the court of the principal district munsif, srikakulam, against the petitioner for exclusive possession of the suit schedule house after evicting her from the same alleging that she was a trespasser and he also sought a permanent injunction. during the pendency_of that suit, he stated that the petitioner had left the house with all her belongings and he fited a memo into the court on 11-4-1996 adverting to the same. when notice was served on her counsel no objection was raised and a decree was granted in his favour by the court after recording his evidence. yet another averment made by him in this affidavit is thy the petitioner changed her name from k. sujatha to m. sujatha, which goes to show that she abandoned the plea that she, as k. sujatha, is the wife of his son k. umamaheshwara rao. as an advocate, she has been signing vakalats as m. sujatha along with one sri k. v. ramanaiah. in the additional affidavit sworn to on 25-11-1996, sri narasaiah, after referring to what has already been stated in the earlier affidavit, averred 'i reliably learnt that she (the petitioner) gave birth to a male child in the first week' of october, 1996. she is having no access to the fifth respondent in the light of her own admission in the statement on oath given by her on 1-2-1996 before their lordships of this court'and, therefore, the petitioner must have 'married some other person' and must 'have been leading a life of the wife of that particular person which eventually gave birth to a male child in the first week of october.'5. from the statement of the fifth respon-dent, sri umamaheshwara rao (the husbandof the petitioner) recorded by this court on1-2-1996, it is clear that he is a free man not inthe illegal custody either of his father or anyone else.6. the facts that emerge from the state- . ments of the petitioner, the fifth respondent. sri umamaheshwara rao, and the material on record clearly establish the indescribable trauma to which the petitioner was subjected to, the mean and debased manipulatory tactics adopted by sri umamaheshwara rao and the crafty and consummate attitude of the forth respondent, sri k. v. narasaiah. viewed from a strictly technical point of view, eschewing the facts established and the realities unmistakably focussing on the tragedy that befell the petitioner, a highly educated and intelligent young lady advocate, it may not perhaps be impermissible to close the matter and leave the parties to seek reliefs in the appropriate for a. but such a course of action, in our considered view, would amount to taking a sterile view of the nature of the jurisdiction, powers and functions of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india. conventional strict scrutiny is sometimes strict in theory and fatal in fact. law and equity slide into each other compelling the constitutional courts to render complete justice untramelled by procedural technicalities and legal complexities by taking a holistic view eschewing compartmental -scrutiny through the lens of law for the sake of compliance with legs, i formalism. when new situations of an unprecedented nature arise for consideration, new solutions without any roots in precedents must, in our view, need to be evolved to lend human touch to administration of justice [see: nawabganj sugar mills case : [1976]1scr803 shiv shanker dal mills v. stale of haryana, : [1980]1scr1170 dda v. skipper construction co. (p) ltd., : air1996sc2005 ]. adhering to this purposive legalism, we propose to deal with the fact situation.7. both the parties belong to the same caste and they appear to be distantly related. at one time, the family of the petitioner was in affluent circumstances but later on fell on evil days; her grand-father had a fleet of motor transport vehicles and the prosperity of the family had disappeared subsequent to thenationalisation of the motor-transport business. her father was working in dubai in order to earn for himself and maintain his family in kakinada.8. it was sri umamaheswara rao, the fifth respondent, who was examined first by this court on 1-2-1996. he holds the degree of m.b.a. he admitted that the petitioner was his class-mate when he was studying for the degree of bachelor of laws in visakha-patnam after obtaining the degree of m.b.a. he discontinued the law course and. accepted a job in gujaratin ntpc. according to the counter-affidavit filed by his father sri k.v. narasaiah, respondent no. 4:'my son is a major, an employee in ntpc at bharuch and he went there on his own accord and has bercn working there since over two years'.there is nothing unnatural in the statement. it rings true. a person studying ii year of the law course applying for a decent job in a public sector undertaking and dis-continu-ing the legal studies is perfectly understandable in these days when the prospects of public employment are bleak. but the statement of sri umamahcshwara rao made before this court on 1-2-1996:'i discontinued my law course because the petitioner was after me...... the petitioner andher sister threatened to commit suicide if i do not mary the petitioner'.clearly reflects the anxiety on his part to hide the truth and project an utterly unbelievable falsehood.9. the petitioner's statement is that when she was studying the law course in vishaka-patnam, sri umamaheswara rao, who was her class-mate fell in love with her and coincidentally as they happen to belong to the same caste, she reciprocated and they developed intimate relations. from her statement, it is clear that sri umamahesh-wara rao took her to his relations' houses and she was introduced to caste elders as the girl he was going to be married. he used to correspond with her on telephone and also through letters. this part of her statement isfully established by documentary evidence, the letter dated 20th february, 1993 written, by sri umaniaheshwara rao to the petitioner addressing her as 'dear suja' refers to his intimate acquaintance with her and the fact that their intimacy was well known to his relations and her relations. it also contains certain matters which are personal to him.10. the 'memorandum of marriage' filed by the petitioner shows that sri umaniaheshwara rao and she were married on 23-9-1993 at ntpc jgpp, jhanoor, gujarat state. it contains the signatures of the petitioner and sri umamaheshwara rao as well as one sri p.b. shreemali, who officiated as the priest. according to the petitioner, her husband sri umamaheshwara rao, after getting the job in gujarat in may, 1993, contacted her on telephone and asked her to come to bharooch in order to go through the formality of marriage. she went there along with her sister and one sri ranga rao, her uncle by courtesy (a close family friend). all of them were received at bharooch by sri umamaheshwara rao and they were put up in a hotel called classic. it was sri umamaheshwara rao who introduced them to the hotel manager as otherwise strangers would not normally be given accommodation. the marriage was performed by a purohit arranged by sri umamaheshwara rao and all of his friends attended the marriage. on the next day, they filed an application in the office of the registrar of marriages for getting their marriage registered. photographs were taken at that time and the marriage was registered by the registrar. the reason for sri umamaheshwara rao calling the petitioner and her people to bharooch for celebration of the marriage was that his father was not agreeable to the marriage. we do not find any trace of falsehood or artificiality in what the petitioner has stated. the marriage certificate filed before us amply establishes the version of the petitioner as to the facturn of the marriage that took place in bharooch on 23-9-1993 and its subsequent registration on 24-9-1993.11. in order to overcome the hard reality of his having married the petitioner, sri umamaheshwara rao invented a totallyincredible story by stating that he was pressurised to marry the petitioner -- she and her sister threatened to commit suicide if he did not marry the petitioner. they came to . gujarat, took him to the registrar's office where there was alreadj an advocate engaged by the petitioner and that his signature was obtained by the advocate. it is absolutely unbelievable thai an young lady, an utter stranger to a place like bharooch could muster courage to go there and pressurise a 29 year old man, a fairly well settled employee of a public sector undertaking drawing a salary of rs. 8,000/- a month to go through the formality of a marriage. after the marriage was registered, the petitioner and her people left bharooch. sri umamaheshwara rao addressed a letter on 26-9-1993 from bharooch to the petitioner to her kakinada address in which he had clearly mentioned that they both should start a new life and the petitioner should earn good name in the society as his wife and that should make him proud of her. 'the letter is in tetugu interspersed with a few sentences in english. at one place, he mentioned : 'you are my better half; life partner and every means of my life'. nothing more is required to conclude that sri umamaheshwara rao has unabashedly uttered falsehood before us that he did not marry the petitioner and that he was tricked into such a situation. subsequently, it appears, sri umamaheshwara rao came more and more under thc girp of his father, the fourth respondent.12. as the petitioner was denied the status of a wife she had, of necessity, to establish her status as the wife of sri umamaheshwara rao. she went and stayed in the house of her father-in-law. he filed, strangely, a suit for permanent injunction restraining her from staying in his house. although in the first instance, the court of the district munsif did not grant a temporary injunction, on appeal he secured such an order from the court of the additional district judge, which was rightly set aside by this court in a revision petition filed by the petitioner herein. even though the petitioner obtained maintenance from the judicial first class magistrate, srikakulam, no amount was paid to her.from her statement, it emerges that in order to purchase peace, her father, in december,-1995, on his return from dubai went to the fourth respondent sri k.v. narasaiah and offered a lakh of rupees towards dowry. accepting that money, while at the same time describing that it was a meagre amount, a' demand was made for rs. 10 lakhs. no affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent denying this part of the petitioner's statement about the receipt of dowry money.13. it appears to us that the marriage between the petitioner and sri umamaheshwara rao failed solely because of the insist ence of sri k.v. narasaiah for dowry and the timidity displayed by sri umamaheshwara rao, who, in order to escape his responsibility of having married the petitioner, as evidenced by the marriage certificate, invented a very mean story that he was pressurised by the petitioner to marry her. no woman placed in the position of the petitioner could withstand such a dreadful situation: living far away from her parents and husband, asserting her right as the wife of sri umamaheshwara rao taking shelter in the house of her father-in-law, who was bent upon pushing her out by every possible means and subjecting her to utmost cruelty by pre-empting every action of her's to contact her husband sri umamaheshwara rao. she had no option except to think of putting an end once and for all to this traumatic condition. perhaps the last straw in her determination to start life afresh was the litigation to which she was dragged in by her husband when he filed a suit in bharooch court seeking annulment of his marriage with the petitioner. she could not succeed in her efforts to get that case transferred to the civil court at srikakulam.14. we are satisfied that humanly it is not possible for any woman enmeshed in adversities like petitioner to retain mental poise and continue the battle on several fronts. realising all this, she got a representation made through her advocate before us that 'enough is enough. i am tired of this life. from out of the hard earned money of my parents, already a good part of it was spent towards dowry,marriage and litigation expenses. if atleast this is compensated in a sum of rs. 2 lakhs, i would treat the whole thing as a bad dream and look forward to a new chapter in life'. we were surprised that a meagre sum of rs. 2 lakhs was asked by the petitioner only to compensate the expenses incurred by her in this entire sordid affair.15. this was sought to be opposed vehemently by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent by urging that the petitioner became pregnant and delivered a child after she had no access to sri umamaheshwara rao and that she started signing vakalats as 'm. sujatha' instead of 'k. sujatha' as she used to do previously and, therefore, no plea of her's for compensation should be entertained. we do not want to go into the question whether the petitioner haad contracted a second marriage or whether she became a mother. any inquiry into this, in our view, would be unfair to her. the so called compensation of rs. 2 lakhs she asked, in our opinion, is far less than the amount she would have spent in the unequal battle to save her and her family's prestige and her social status both as a woman and also as a member of the legal profession. the request made by her is very just and reasonable.16. we, therefore, direct respondents 4 and 5 --sri k. v. narasaiah and sri umamaheshwara rao --jointly and severally to deposit a sum of rs two lakhs within eight weeks from today with the registrar (judicial) of this court to the credit of this writ petition and the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same. in default, the petitioner shall be entitled to execute this order and realise the amount as a decree of the court.17. the writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, which we quantify at rs. 10,000/- (ten thousands) recoverable from respondents 4 and 5 jointly and severally.18. petition allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.N. Rao, J.

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 nextday 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 of1994 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/- per month was granted but no payment was made. She asserted that although a number of cases arepending, 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/-with 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/- 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.

4. Sri K. V. Narasaiah the fourth res-pondent, in his counter-affidavit sworn on I 24-11-1995 has stated that Sri Umamaheshwara Rao, his son, after obtaining M.B.A., degree studied law for two years and dis-continuing the same, joined the NTPC and his office and residential addresses are well known to the petitioner. In the cases filed by her, she got notices issued to Sri Uma- maheshw'ara Rao and the same were received by him. He denied the allegation that he was interested in grabbing lakhs, of rupees as dowry. The alleged marriage that took place on 23-9-1993 between his ion and the petitioner at Bharooch was not true and that the validity of the said marriage is pending decision in a court in Bharooch. His son is employed in Bharooch and the allegation that he sent him away in order to prevent him from meeting the petitioner was not true. He also swore to two additional counter affidavits, one on 27-10-1996 and the other on 25-11-1996. In the former affidavit dated 27-10-1996, Sri Narasaiah, after referring to the maintenance petition M. C. No. 24 of 1995 filed in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam by the petitioner, stated that she did not pursue the same and a memo was filed' into the court on 5-6-1996 by her advocate stating that the same may be dismissed as not pressed and accordingly the same was dismissed. He also averred that he filed O. S. No. 61 of 1994 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam, against the petitioner for exclusive possession of the suit schedule house after evicting her from the same alleging that she was a trespasser and he also sought a permanent injunction. During the pendency_of that suit, he stated that the petitioner had left the house with all her belongings and he fited a memo into the court on 11-4-1996 adverting to the same. When notice was served on her counsel no objection was raised and a decree was granted in his favour by the Court after recording his evidence. Yet another averment made by him in this affidavit is thy the petitioner changed her name from K. Sujatha to M. Sujatha, which goes to show that she abandoned the plea that she, as K. Sujatha, is the wife of his son K. Umamaheshwara Rao. As an advocate, she has been signing vakalats as M. Sujatha along with one Sri K. V. Ramanaiah. In the additional affidavit sworn to on 25-11-1996, Sri Narasaiah, after referring to what has already been stated in the earlier affidavit, averred 'I reliably learnt that she (the petitioner) gave birth to a male child in the first week' of October, 1996. She is having no access to the fifth respondent in the light of her own admission in the statement on oath given by her on 1-2-1996 before their Lordships of this Court'

and, therefore, the petitioner must have 'married some other person' and must 'have been leading a life of the wife of that particular person which eventually gave birth to a male child in the first week of October.'

5. From the statement of the fifth respon-dent, Sri Umamaheshwara Rao (the husbandof the petitioner) recorded by this court on1-2-1996, it is clear that he is a free man not inthe illegal custody either of his father or anyone else.

6. The facts that emerge from the state- . ments of the petitioner, the fifth respondent. Sri Umamaheshwara Rao, and the material on record clearly establish the indescribable trauma to which the petitioner was subjected to, the mean and debased manipulatory tactics adopted by Sri Umamaheshwara Rao and the crafty and consummate attitude of the forth respondent, Sri K. V. Narasaiah. Viewed from a strictly technical point of view, eschewing the facts established and the realities unmistakably focussing on the tragedy that befell the petitioner, a highly educated and intelligent young lady advocate, it may not perhaps be impermissible to close the matter and leave the parties to seek reliefs in the appropriate for a. But such a course of action, in our considered view, would amount to taking a sterile view of the nature of the jurisdiction, powers and functions of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Conventional strict scrutiny is sometimes strict in theory and fatal in fact. Law and equity slide into each other compelling the Constitutional courts to render complete justice untramelled by procedural technicalities and legal complexities by taking a holistic view eschewing compartmental -scrutiny through the lens of law for the sake of compliance with legs, I formalism. When new situations of an unprecedented nature arise for consideration, new solutions without any roots in precedents must, in our view, need to be evolved to lend human touch to administration of justice [See: Nawabganj Sugar Mills Case : [1976]1SCR803 Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. Stale of Haryana, : [1980]1SCR1170 DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., : AIR1996SC2005 ]. Adhering to this purposive legalism, we propose to deal with the fact situation.

7. Both the parties belong to the same caste and they appear to be distantly related. At one time, the family of the petitioner was in affluent circumstances but later on fell on evil days; her grand-father had a fleet of motor transport vehicles and the prosperity of the family had disappeared subsequent to thenationalisation of the motor-transport business. Her father was working in Dubai in order to earn for himself and maintain his family in Kakinada.

8. It was Sri Umamaheswara Rao, the fifth respondent, who was examined first by this Court on 1-2-1996. He holds the degree of M.B.A. He admitted that the petitioner was his class-mate when he was studying for the degree of Bachelor of Laws in Visakha-patnam after obtaining the degree of M.B.A. He discontinued the law course and. accepted a job in Gujaratin NTPC. According to the counter-affidavit filed by his father Sri K.V. Narasaiah, respondent No. 4:

'My son is a major, an employee in NTPC at Bharuch and he went there on his own accord and has bercn working there since over two years'.

There is nothing unnatural in the statement. It rings true. A person studying II year of the Law course applying for a decent job in a Public Sector Undertaking and dis-continu-ing the legal studies is perfectly understandable in these days when the prospects of public employment are bleak. But the statement of Sri Umamahcshwara Rao made before this Court on 1-2-1996:

'I discontinued my law course because the petitioner was after me...... the petitioner andher sister threatened to commit suicide if I do not mary the petitioner'.

clearly reflects the anxiety on his part to hide the truth and project an utterly unbelievable falsehood.

9. The petitioner's statement is that when she was studying the law course in Vishaka-patnam, Sri Umamaheswara Rao, who was her class-mate fell in love with her and coincidentally as they happen to belong to the same caste, she reciprocated and they developed intimate relations. From her statement, it is clear that Sri Umamahesh-wara Rao took her to his relations' houses and she was introduced to caste elders as the girl he was going to be married. He used to correspond with her on telephone and also through letters. This part of her statement isfully established by documentary evidence, the letter dated 20th February, 1993 written, by Sri Umaniaheshwara Rao to the petitioner addressing her as 'Dear Suja' refers to his intimate acquaintance with her and the fact that their intimacy was well known to his relations and her relations. It also contains certain matters which are personal to him.

10. The 'memorandum of marriage' filed by the petitioner shows that Sri Umaniaheshwara Rao and she were married on 23-9-1993 at NTPC JGPP, Jhanoor, Gujarat State. It contains the signatures of the petitioner and Sri Umamaheshwara Rao as well as one Sri P.B. Shreemali, who officiated as the priest. According to the petitioner, her husband Sri Umamaheshwara Rao, after getting the job in Gujarat in May, 1993, contacted her on telephone and asked her to come to Bharooch in order to go through the formality of marriage. She went there along with her sister and one Sri Ranga Rao, her uncle by courtesy (a close family friend). All of them were received at Bharooch by Sri Umamaheshwara Rao and they were put up in a hotel called Classic. It was Sri Umamaheshwara Rao who introduced them to the hotel manager as otherwise strangers would not normally be given accommodation. The marriage was performed by a purohit arranged by Sri Umamaheshwara Rao and all of his friends attended the marriage. On the next day, they filed an application in the office of the Registrar of Marriages for getting their marriage registered. Photographs were taken at that time and the marriage was registered by the Registrar. The reason for Sri Umamaheshwara Rao calling the petitioner and her people to Bharooch for celebration of the marriage was that his father was not agreeable to the marriage. We do not find any trace of falsehood or artificiality in what the petitioner has stated. The marriage certificate filed before us amply establishes the version of the petitioner as to the facturn of the marriage that took place in Bharooch on 23-9-1993 and its subsequent registration on 24-9-1993.

11. In order to overcome the hard reality of his having married the petitioner, Sri Umamaheshwara Rao invented a totallyincredible story by stating that he was pressurised to marry the petitioner -- she and her sister threatened to commit suicide if he did not marry the petitioner. They came to . Gujarat, took him to the Registrar's office where there was alreadj an advocate engaged by the petitioner and that his signature was obtained by the advocate. It is absolutely unbelievable thai an young lady, an utter stranger to a place like Bharooch could muster courage to go there and pressurise a 29 year old man, a fairly well settled employee of a Public Sector Undertaking drawing a salary of Rs. 8,000/- a month to go through the formality of a marriage. After the marriage was registered, the petitioner and her people left Bharooch. Sri Umamaheshwara Rao addressed a letter on 26-9-1993 from Bharooch to the petitioner to her kakinada address in which he had clearly mentioned that they both should start a new life and the petitioner should earn good name in the society as his wife and that should make him proud of her. 'The letter is in Tetugu interspersed with a few sentences in English. At one place, he mentioned : 'You are my better half; life partner and every means of my life'. Nothing more is required to conclude that Sri Umamaheshwara Rao has unabashedly uttered falsehood before us that he did not marry the petitioner and that he was tricked into such a situation. Subsequently, it appears, Sri Umamaheshwara Rao came more and more under thc girp of his father, the fourth respondent.

12. As the petitioner was denied the status of a wife she had, of necessity, to establish her status as the wife of Sri Umamaheshwara Rao. She went and stayed in the house of her father-in-law. He filed, strangely, a suit for permanent injunction restraining her from staying in his house. Although in the first instance, the Court of the District Munsif did not grant a temporary injunction, on appeal he secured such an order from the Court of the Additional District Judge, which was rightly set aside by this Court in a revision petition filed by the petitioner herein. Even though the petitioner obtained maintenance from the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, no amount was paid to her.From her statement, it emerges that in order to purchase peace, her father, in December,-1995, on his return from Dubai went to the fourth respondent Sri K.V. Narasaiah and offered a lakh of rupees towards dowry. Accepting that money, while at the same time describing that it was a meagre amount, a' demand was made for Rs. 10 lakhs. No affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent denying this part of the petitioner's statement about the receipt of dowry money.

13. It appears to us that the marriage between the petitioner and Sri Umamaheshwara Rao failed solely because of the insist ence of Sri K.V. Narasaiah for dowry and the timidity displayed by Sri Umamaheshwara Rao, who, in order to escape his responsibility of having married the petitioner, as evidenced by the marriage certificate, invented a very mean story that he was pressurised by the petitioner to marry her. No woman placed in the position of the petitioner could withstand such a dreadful situation: living far away from her parents and husband, asserting her right as the wife of Sri Umamaheshwara Rao taking shelter in the house of her father-in-law, who was bent upon pushing her out by every possible means and subjecting her to utmost cruelty by pre-empting every action of her's to contact her husband Sri Umamaheshwara Rao. she had no option except to think of putting an end once and for all to this traumatic condition. Perhaps the last straw in her determination to start life afresh was the litigation to which she was dragged in by her husband when he filed a suit in Bharooch Court seeking annulment of his marriage with the petitioner. She could not succeed in her efforts to get that case transferred to the civil Court at Srikakulam.

14. We are satisfied that humanly it is not possible for any woman enmeshed in adversities like petitioner to retain mental poise and continue the battle on several fronts. Realising all this, she got a representation made through her advocate before us that 'enough is enough. I am tired of this life. From out of the hard earned money of my parents, already a good part of it was spent towards dowry,marriage and litigation expenses. If atleast this is compensated in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, I would treat the whole thing as a bad dream and look forward to a new chapter in life'. We were surprised that a meagre sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs was asked by the petitioner only to compensate the expenses incurred by her in this entire sordid affair.

15. This was sought to be opposed vehemently by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent by urging that the petitioner became pregnant and delivered a child after she had no access to Sri Umamaheshwara Rao and that she started signing vakalats as 'M. Sujatha' instead of 'K. Sujatha' as she used to do previously and, therefore, no plea of her's for compensation should be entertained. We do not want to go into the question whether the petitioner haad contracted a second marriage or whether she became a mother. Any inquiry into this, in our view, would be unfair to her. The so called compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs she asked, in our opinion, is far less than the amount she would have spent in the unequal battle to save her and her family's prestige and her social status both as a woman and also as a member of the legal profession. The request made by her is very just and reasonable.

16. We, therefore, direct respondents 4 and 5 --Sri K. V. Narasaiah and Sri Umamaheshwara Rao --jointly and severally to deposit a sum of Rs two lakhs within eight weeks from today with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the credit of this writ petition and the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same. In default, the petitioner shall be entitled to execute this order and realise the amount as a decree of the Court.

17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousands) recoverable from respondents 4 and 5 jointly and severally.

18. Petition allowed.