Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 73 (AP)

Oleti Bhaskara Ramakrishna v. Oleti Rama Kumari

2014-01-22

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL

body2014
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant is the husband of the respondent and their marriage took place on 28.06.1986. He filed O.P.No.159 of 2000 in the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, against the respondent, for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), by pleading the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged that ever since the marriage, the respondent did not participate in family life, and that she used to insult him in several ways. It was also alleged that the respondent abruptly left the matrimonial house in the year 1997, and she did not come back, inspite of repeated requests. It was mentioned that in the year 2000, the respondent got issued a notice, proposing for mutual divorce, by insisting on payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and, thereafter, she resiled. On receipt of notice in the O.P., the respondent filed counter. She denied the allegations made in the O.P. She stated that after the marriage, they lived together for four years at S. Kota, and for 5 years at Kesara. From the year 1996 to 1999, they are said to have lived in the railway quarters at Visakhapatnam. She alleged that on receiving information about the death of her maternal grandmother, she left for Chodavaram in December, 1999, and by the time she came back, the appellant vacated the house. Her further allegation was that when she went to the house of the parents of the appellant where he was living, entry was denied to her and, at a later point of time, her articles were returned, by taking an acknowledgment. She expressed her willingness to live with the appellant. Through its order, dated 16.01.2003, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Smt. Anjana Devi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the evidence on record, particularly, Ex.B.1, clearly discloses that the respondent is guilty of the acts of cruelty towards the appellant, and that she deserted the appellant, without any basis. She submits that the trial Court has misinterpreted the evidence on record. She further submits that the parties are living separately, for the past more than a decade, and it is a fit case for granting a decree for divorce. The appellant was not clear about the place, where his marriage with the respondent had taken place. She submits that the trial Court has misinterpreted the evidence on record. She further submits that the parties are living separately, for the past more than a decade, and it is a fit case for granting a decree for divorce. The appellant was not clear about the place, where his marriage with the respondent had taken place. In the O.P., he stated that the marriage took place at S. Kota, whereas the record shows that it was performed at Lakkavaram, at the house of the parents of the respondent. A decree for divorce was sought, by pleading the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In view of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely, whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for divorce. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.3 were filed. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1, the letter of the appellant, was filed. The trial Court dismissed the O.P., on a finding that the appellant failed to prove the grounds pleaded by him. The point, that arises for consideration before us, is as to whether the appellant has established the grounds of cruelty and desertion, on the part of the respondent. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. Though in a O.P. filed for divorce by pleading the grounds of cruelty and desertion, for many a time, the aspect of cruelty, if proved, would buttress the contention as to desertion also. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether the respondent has deserted the appellant. The O.P. is filed, 14 years after the marriage between the parties. Though the appellant pleaded that there was total discord between himself and the respondent ever since their marriage, the record discloses that they lived together till December, 1999. In his attempt to prove that there did not exist any harmony between them, the appellant has examined several other witnesses. His two sisters deposed as P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 stated that the parties herein lived together happily for about two or three years. In his attempt to prove that there did not exist any harmony between them, the appellant has examined several other witnesses. His two sisters deposed as P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 stated that the parties herein lived together happily for about two or three years. That is at variance with, what was pleaded by P.W.1, who stated that ever since his marriage with the respondent, there was no harmony between them with, what was pleaded by P.W.1, who stated that ever since his marriage with the respondent, there was no harmony between them at all. The statement of P.W.3 is somehow at variance with that of her sister P.W.2. The evidence of other witnesses examined by the appellant is hardly of any assistance to him. Though the appellant pleaded that the respondent deserted him in the year 1997, he admitted in his cross-examination that till December, 1999, the respondent was with him. The purpose, for which the respondent left the house of the appellant in December, 1999, was that she came to know about the death of her maternal grand-mother. A visit made by a woman to pay her last respect to her maternal grand-mother, cannot be said to be an act of desertion. Hardly there was any cooperation, much less, consolation, on the part of the appellant. He is said to have advised the respondent to go to Chodavaram, on the eve of 12th day ceremony, and when he did not even accompany the respondent up to the bus-stand, she took the help of another and left the place. What happened, after the respondent left the house to attend the funeral of her maternal grand-mother, is somewhat crucial. After completion of the ceremony, she came back to the place of the appellant. But, to her utter surprise, she found that the house was vacated. Thereafter, she went to the house of her in-laws, where the appellant was living, and for that purpose, she took the help of her paternal uncle. In her chief-examination, the respondent stated that she was not permitted to enter the house, and after some time, she was permitted to take her belongings, after obtaining her signature. No cross-examination was made on this aspect. Therefore, it clearly emerges that the reason for the respondent not to live with the appellant is just desertion or dislike, on the part of the appellant. No cross-examination was made on this aspect. Therefore, it clearly emerges that the reason for the respondent not to live with the appellant is just desertion or dislike, on the part of the appellant. Not only the appellant did not make any efforts to bring her back, but he also denied permission to her, when she sought to live with him. Therefore, the desertion, if at all, was on the part of the appellant. Even when the parties are physically living together, there may be instances of cruelty, be it, mental or physical. The appellant is not able to point out any acts of cruelty, on the part of the respondent. His averments in the O.P. are too general and vague in nature. No specific act was attributed to the respondent. The very fact that the parties were living together for 14 years, till the respondent left for Chodavaram in December, 1999, and the appellant also did not feel any inconvenience, discloses that the life was harmonious till then. It is, no doubt, true that the respondent got issued Ex.A.3 notice requiring the appellant to agree for mutual divorce, on payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, as permanent alimony. Any person in the place of the respondent, in such a dejected and frustrated mood, would have thought of the alternative. However, the respondent made it clear that she is intending to live with the appellant. With that, the offer, if any, made through Ex.A.3, stands withdrawn. We do not find any acts of cruelty, on the part of the respondent. The trial Court has recorded the findings, on the basis of the evidence on record, and no interference is warranted, with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand disposed of.