Defamation

taking divorce in case MCD it will take min 6months..or earlier

contested divorce you will get 2-3 years......

you can file civil defamation to get the compensation

SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MANDAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE ,TIRUPATI,CHITTOOR DISTRICT,A.P

COMPLAINANT

E.CHALAPATHI NAIDU ,S/O E.Narasimhulu Naidu

Huose No.18-1-90/14/1 (old),18-36-s2-75  (new)

YASODANAGAR,TIRUPATI-517501

PHONE:9392396012

RESPONDANT

K.SUBRAMANYAM,S/O K.VENKATASWAMY

House No .6-13-17A,Dr.Ambedkar colony

Near Chenna reddy colony,TIRUPATI-517501

SUBJECT :-  Mr. K. SUBRAMANYAM and his wife Smt.GEETHA   harassing  my wife with  unwritten  words  and beated  in the premises of  R&B Office where he worked and destroyed her cell phone , made a police complaint in ALIPIRI POLICE STATION and  propagating the baseless illegal contact  which leads made our family in untolarable  mental torture  humiliating  my three disable children 1. E.VENKATA NARESH  ,ORTHO DISABLE   2. E.ANUSHA &E.PRATHYUSHA both 100% deaf and dumb

DETAILS IN BRIEF :-

1.      I submit the Hon’ble  MANDAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE  that I am chalpathi naidu enugonda s/o E.Narasimhulu Naidu, aged 51 years ,belongs  ekari ,backword community caste, daily wage earner  resididing in above mentioned address since 3 years  with my wife ENUGONDA RAMADEVI aged about 42 years ,house wife and working in home doing

Hand embroidery and fabric painting work  earning major income feeding our three disable children and maintaining family with support of two children disable pension Rs.500/- EACH.

2.      The elder son ENUGONDA VENKATA NARESH studying 10^th class in SRI SARASWATHI SISU MANDIR HIGH SCHOOL ,Railway Colony,TIRUPATI, the remaining two daughters studying  9^th &6^th in SRI VENKATESWARA HIGH SCHOOL FOR the DEAF ,ALIPIRI ,TIRUPATI

3.      We belongs to pala ekari  ,the backword community and landless agriculture family . we have white ration card No.WAP1084081A0049.

4 .We came to tirupati in june 2007  to join our daughters in deaf and school and for the the   

   treatment of my son in SVIMS HOSPITAL who is suffering from three chronical diseases  

   1.DIASTEMAYELIA,2.CHRONICAL TROPIC ULCERS OF LEFT FOOT 3.NEUROGENIC  

    BLADDER since birth 

4.      Due to  poor condition and regular visits to many hospitals  for my son treatment I lost my  private jobs  frequently ,  to save my son life we approached many people for help,meanwhile the doctors adviced to  appeal the public for  financial assistane with their cost of estimated letters.

5.      SO seeing the panic condition of our family   Smt.MYTHILI  ,an employee in  ROAD &BUILDINGS OFFICE in SCV Channel   sent Rs.5000/-  WITH HER COLLEAGUE  Mr. k.subramanyam 

6.      From that day onwards he frequently visited our house and enquired our family back ground ,he became a friend and his native also very near to my wife father’s sister.

7.      My wife who is good relations with office staff  and his followers who are residing near house developed financial  dealings through with him  to send sarees to office staff and their family members.

8.      On this six long years  family friendship and  we allowed him to involve in our  salvation problems

9.      Regarding hospital  treatments, hand loan givings and takings . WITH HIS ORAL  REQUEST MY WIFE INVOLVED IN HIS CHIT AMOUNT and paid 2 instalments with his money and after taking the chit he will not pay any since to day

10.  My wife taking loans from other sources paid all his dues believing his words   that recently employee salaries are keep on pending due to SAMAIKYA ANDHRA MOMENT

11.  But  not to tolerate the pressure from her  lenders with high interest approached many times for repayment of  chit amount ,but he escaped from office without responding  to her

12.  My son also went to their office ,but invain , the staff who helped  scolded her feeling guilty of debt.

13.  ON 17 TH OF THIS MONTH THE ALIPIRI POLICE CALLED MY WIFE  TO ATTEND THE POLICE STATION SAYING THAT A REPORT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY MR. K.SUBRA MANYAM AND HIS WIFE  AND THEY MAKE COMPLAINT UNDER SC/ST ATTROCITY CASE . Shoking  to hear this we all 5 members  approached police station  on 20^th . the police settled the amount to pay RS.20000/- TO Y WIFE .

14.   TILL TO DAY THEY DID NOT PAY THE MONEY  BUT THEY  THRATENDING US

15.  So I request the Hon’ble  MANDAL LEGAL COMMITTEE  TO ENQIRE THE MATTER  and do justice to our poor family  

THANKING YOU SIR

                                                                                                                   Yours faithfully.

                                                                                                                  (E.CHALAPATHI NAIDU)

7

Thanks for reply ....

you said that it will take 2-3 years for contested divorce case but i would like to know if we get acquitted in 498A within 1 year then also contested divorce will take 2-3 years or will get divorce immediately as filing false complaints against husband and his family is also a ground for divorce. 

Kindly advise.

Dear, yes you can take divorce on the ground of mental cruelty once you have been acquitted from all the charges and you can go civil case for defamation for getting some monetary compensation for all the damages occurred to you and your family reputation due to the same.
Recent Supreme Court judgment supporting your case to get divorce after acquittal is
Acts of commission by a woman in filing a criminal complaint against her husband and his relatives resulting in the husband being in distress in jail constitute mental cruelty to him and, therefore, he is entitled to get the relief of divorce, the Madras High Court has held.
A Division Bench of Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and M. Venugopal said this in its judgment while allowing appeals by a person challenging a common order of the Principal Family Court here of April 24, 2008 dismissing his petition praying for divorce and allowing his wife's petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
He had married the daughter of a former Tamil Nadu MLA here in April 2000 as per Hindu custom.
The appellant's senior counsel, P. Wilson, contended that his client's wife after initiating criminal proceedings against her husband and nine others was not entitled to obtain the relief of restitution of conjugal rights because of the inconsistency in her case.
DEFINING CRUELTY
The judges said what conduct would amount to cruelty was a question of fact to be decided on the facts and particulars of each case. When a divorce was being sought on grounds of cruelty, the acts complained should be so grave and weighty to enable a court to conclude that one party could not reasonably be expected to live with the other.
The Bench said that in its considered opinion, on grounds of cruelty, the whole matrimonial relations should be considered.
SC JUDGMENT
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Judges observed that cruelty would normally consist not of harmful acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts.
It should be established that one party in the marriage, ignoring consequences, had misbehaved, which the other party could not be called upon to endure, and that misconduct had caused injury to health or a reasonable apprehension of such injury.
The Bench pointed out that in the present case, the husband had been put in jail for 22 days for alleged offences of dowry harassment and attempt to murder. Further, the woman had gone to the extent of filing intervening application opposing the bail sought by her husband. The case later ended in acquittal.
Filing of a criminal complaint by the wife against the husband and his relatives, instituting cases based on it and the same ending in acquittal and before that the husband being in distress for 22 days in jail, all these acts of commissions by the wife clearly constituted mental cruelty to the husband who admittedly would have undergone a traumatic experience and suffered humiliation in social circles.
In the present case, the marriage had become emotionally dead. It had irretrievably broken down. Moreover, the element of separation between the parties unerringly point out that there was an intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. The differences of opinion should not be considered as temporary passions.
The Bench ruled that the husband was entitled to get divorce.
His wife was not entitled to get the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. It said the marriage would stand dissolved.
Regards

Isha Bhardwaj

lawkonect.com

09555507507