Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 87 (AP)

Chintaluari Jagadeeswara Rao, S/O. Kasnakama v. Chintalauri Naveena, W/o. Chintalauri Jagadeswara Rao

2026-01-23

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, BATTU DEVANAND

body2026
JUDGMENT : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. Introductory:- Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his petition/application filed in terms of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 denying the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the petitioner in O.P.No.11 of 2003, filed the present appeal. 2. O.P.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, at Visakhapatnam was dismissed vide order and decree dated 07.11.2006. 3. Respondent herein is his wife and she is the respondent before the learned Family Court. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties are herein after referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order. Case of the Petitioner/husband :- 5. [i] The marriage between petitioner and the respondent was performed according to Hindu religious customs and rites. During their wed lock, they are blessed with a child by name Shasidhar Mani. [ii] In the year 1993, the respondent went to Anakapalle to her parents house for delivery and she came back in the year 1995. Again she went back to her parental home at Anakapalle on the ground of sickness of her brother and never returned. However, he used to visit Anakapalle. On 12.09.2002 the respondent gave complaint to Anakapalle Police that the petitioner is demanding the respondent to bring dowry form her parents. On the advice of elders the same was withdrawn and action against the petitioner was dropped by the Police. [iii] The attempts of the petitioner to get the matrimonial home restored with the intervention of elders, did not yield positive result, hence, he is constrained to file the application for restitution of conjugal rights. Case of the respondent/wife:- 6. [i] Petition allegations are false. Marriage was followed by presentation of dowry of Rs.25,000/- and 70 tulas of silver and Adapaduchu launchanams etc.. [ii] For delivery, she went to her parents house in the 7 th month of her pregnancy. Though birth of child was informed, the petitioner did not come to see the respondent and his child and not even attended the naming ceremony of their son. [iii] The petitioner did not take care of them and not provided anything including for purchase of milk etc., for the child. Thus on neglect, she is constrained to stay at her parental house. Therefore, no bonafides in the petition. Evidence:- 7. [iii] The petitioner did not take care of them and not provided anything including for purchase of milk etc., for the child. Thus on neglect, she is constrained to stay at her parental house. Therefore, no bonafides in the petition. Evidence:- 7. [i] The petitioner taken witness stand as PW.1 and got marked the documents under Exs.A1 to A11 on his behalf. Further he got examined one K.Trinadaha Rao and one K.Ramachary, third parties on his behalf as PW.2 and PW.3. [ii] On behalf of the respondent, she has taken witness stand as RW.1 and got one Uma Sundari examined as RW.2. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent. Findings of the learned Judge, Family Court:- 8. [i] The petitioner has admitted that his wife filed M.C.No.30 of 2002. He has also admitted that he stayed at Anakapalle along with the respondent for two months, in June and July 2002. Evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, is not of any personal knowledge. [ii] RW.1 stated about the reasons for her separate living inclusive of harassing of the respondent and filing of maintenance case and that the application for Restitution of Conjugal rights is filed subsequent to her maintenance case vide M.C.No.30 of 2002, as a counter blast. There was negligence by the petitioner to maintain her. [iii] RW.2 is the neighbour to the respondent and her evidence is natural. The application for Restitution of conjugal rights is counter blast to the maintenance case of the petitioner. Therefore, deserves dismissal. Arguments in the Appeal:- For the appellant (husband):- 9. [i] Learned Judge, Family Court failed to note several attempts made by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal society and the efforts of the PW.3 to mediate the issue between the parties. [ii] Learned Judge, Family Court discarded the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 on the ground that they are not aware of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. [iii] Learned Family Court given undue weightage to the evidence of RW.2. [iv] Learned Family Court failed to consider the anxiety of the petitioner to have the matrimonial tie continued. 10. Though notice is served, none appeared for the respondent. 11. [iii] Learned Family Court given undue weightage to the evidence of RW.2. [iv] Learned Family Court failed to consider the anxiety of the petitioner to have the matrimonial tie continued. 10. Though notice is served, none appeared for the respondent. 11. Upon perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the appellant/husband is entitled for the relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights and whether the impugned Orders dated 07.11.2006 in O.P.No.11 of 2003 sustainable in law or on facts? Or Whether any interference is necessary? If so, on what grounds and to which extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1 - 12. The petitioner as PW.1 reiterated his stand while referring to the letters returned by him, requesting the respondent his wife to join with him. During the cross-examination, the petitioner as PW.1 stated that he has no proof to show that medical bills are paid by him when his wife was admitted at Hospital. He has the habit of keeping the Xerox copies of letters addressed to anyone. It is to be seen that the letters relied on by him are the Money Order copies and copies of letters dated 13.12.2002 and 23.12.2002. Normally, when letter is written by a husband to his wife, keeping a copy of the same, whether is with the intention of creating a foundation for further legal proceedings is a serious doubt, left unanswered. 13. Petitioner has stated that the respondent gave birth to a child on 26.01.1993 and she was discharged from the Hospital, on 28.01.1993 and he can produce relevant record as to availing leave during that period. It was suggested to him that he necked out the respondent and his son in the month of February, 1993 and he did not take care of them till 1999. He has admitted that he has vacated the quarters and took a house at Gopalapatnam in the year 2000. He added that after 1995 he used to visit in-laws house once in a month where his wife and son are residing. This suggests that the respondent has lived separately. It was also suggested to him that one Uma Sundari and his colleagues chastised him to take care of his wife. He added that after 1995 he used to visit in-laws house once in a month where his wife and son are residing. This suggests that the respondent has lived separately. It was also suggested to him that one Uma Sundari and his colleagues chastised him to take care of his wife. He has admitted that in the month of September 2002, the respondent gave Police complaint against him and that subsequently she filed M.C.No.30 of 2002. 14. Both, PW.2 and PW.3 stated that they do not know the personal affairs of PW.1 and reasons for the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent as RW.1 reiterated her stand in her chief- examination. She has asserted in the cross-examination that since the time of delivery she is residing at her parents house. She denied the suggestion that the petitioner and his parents attended naming ceremony (Namakaranam function). She has specifically stated that she is not willing to join the petitioner even if he intends to take her back. 15. RW.2-Uma Sundari deposed that the petitioner did not come to hospital after the delivery and that the petitioner made allegations against the brother of the respondent and made the marriage proposals of the brother of the respondent, failed. 16. The following points are relevant:- [i] Respondent (wife) went to her parental home for delivery in the seventh month of pregnancy. [ii] Thereafter, stayed at her parents house for a considerable time. [iii] The petitioner admitted that he used to visit house of his in-laws even in the year 1995. [iv] Respondent gave complaint to Police in the year 2002. [v] Respondent (wife) filed Maintenance Case in the year 2002. [vi] Petitioner filed the present case for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the year 2003. [vii] There was no legal notice etc., demanding Restitution of Conjugal Rights, prior to filing of this case. [viii] The argument that wife did not initiate any legal proceedings for divorce etc., found not relevant as she has initiated proceedings for Maintenance etc.. [ix] The legal remedies if any for the appellant/husband on the ground of long separate living are elsewhere. [x] Entitlement of appellant/husband, for Restitution Conjugal Rights is considered in the present case with reference to the cause of action pleaded in this case. 17. [ix] The legal remedies if any for the appellant/husband on the ground of long separate living are elsewhere. [x] Entitlement of appellant/husband, for Restitution Conjugal Rights is considered in the present case with reference to the cause of action pleaded in this case. 17. Upon considering the above aspects, this Court finds that the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge, Family Court for dismissal, is rational. Therefore, we find that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly point No.1 framed is answered against the appellant/petitioner/husband and in favour of the respondent/wife. Point No.2:- 18. In view of the discussion made above and the conclusions drawn under point No.1, in the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.