IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT MAHABUBNAGAR.
Thursday, this the10"day of April,2025.
Present: Smt.Gundla Radhika,
Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.
07 of
HMOP
Between:-
Dole Shiva Kumar, S/o Dole Kurumurthy, Age: 28 Years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o Fareedpur Village of C.C.Kunta Mandal,
«Petitioner.
Mahabubnagar District.
AND
Smt.M.Aruna@Lasya, W/o D.Shiva Kumar, D/o Mudindla Pedda Venkatanna, Age: 28 years, R/o Fareedpur Village ofC.C.Kunta Mandal, MahabubnagarDistrict. Presently residing at KumarlingampallyVillageof Narva Mandal, Narayanapet District.
...Respondent.
This petition has come up before me for final hearing on 27.03.2025 theofSri.B.V.Rathnam,AdvocateforPetitionerand inpresence SriT.Narsimulu,Advocate forthematerial Respondent,uponperusing paperson record,upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over forconsiderationto this day the Courtdeliveredthe following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage 1955 for grant of decree of divorce dissolving the Act,marriage
dated: 18.12.2020 between the petitioner withand for
respondent costs of the petition.
&
HMOP No.07 of 2023
210.04.2025
2.The brief averments in the petition are as under:-
The petitioner and respondent are lawful husband and wife, the marriageofboth parties has solemnized with the consent of both the families on 18.12.2020 at the house of petitioner at Fardipur Village of
C.C.Kunta Mandal of Mahabubnagar District as per Hindu rights and customs prevailing in their community and they are governed by the
Hindu Marriage Act.
(ii).It is submitted by the petitioner that, after marriage the respondent joined the company of the petitioner at their matrimonial home in the joint family at Fardipur Village and they lead happy matrimonial life for a period of few months only. Even in that period also the respondent did not lead marital life with the petitioner, as such the parents of both parties advised the respondent and also conducted several panchayats, but she did not change her egoism and did not cooperated the petitioner for their smooth matrimonial life. It is further submitted that, the petitioner consisting all the family members of him, but the same was not received by the respondent and she always opined that she has to live with the petitioner alone by leaving old aged parents of petitioner for their fair and used to
quarrel with petitioner and his parents for silly reasonsf
for |. SCJ, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023310.04.2025
sometimes she did not provide food to his old aged mother and compel her to go outside from the house and she harassed the petitioner mentally with a demand to put separate family.On 15.05.2021 she left to her parental home without giving any information to petitioner and his parents, even till today respondent and her parents did not turn-upto thepetitioner and several timesin the panchayat caste and village elders advised the respondent and her parents, but they did not change their attitude and they never sent the respondent till today to lead happy marital life with petitioner.
(iv). That the petitioner was waiting from long time with a hope of change in respondent, continued his matrimonial relationship, but the respondent never turn-up to the petitioner for conjugal society, as such petitioner wants to dissolve his marriage by way of divorce with the respondent and during his matrimonial life with the respondent, he suffered a lot mentally. As such, the petitioner approached this
Hon'ble Court having no other option. Hence, the petition.
3.filed counterher Respondentadmittingmarriageandher relationshipwiththedenying thematerial petitioner,averments “interalia” contended as follows:
It is stated that, after marriage respondent lived with when
Prilscs, ‘BNR,
HMOP No.07 of 2023
410.04.2025 of petitioner by serving all domestic works and she render her services to the family members of petitioner, she never harassed the petitioner at any point of time and she never made any proposal that to put separate family alone with the petitioner by leaving old aged parentsofthe petitioner to their fare. In fact, the respondent rendered her services towards the old aged mother of petitioner and she never quarreled with petitioner for silly reasons at any point of time, as such the question of quarrel for silly reasons with the parents of the petitioner does not arise and denied that she did not provide food to the old aged mother of petitioner and compel her to go outside of the house and stated that petitioner came to the house in late hours in drunken condition, when he was in drunken state unnecessarily picked-up quarrel with her and used to abuse her in filthy language and also beat her indiscriminately several times, as such respondent brought the same to the notice of the mother of the petitioner, but she alwayssupportedthetowardsthe petitionerrespondent,but respondent tolerated all these harassment by the petitioner with a hope that he will change his attitude and look after her well, but insteadof change,the petitionerdevelopeddisliketowardsthe respondent and subjected to harass the respondent both physically
Pri. SCJ, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023510.04.2025
and mentally and denied that on 15.05.2021 she went to her parent’s home without any just cause or reason and also without any prior permissionfromeitherthe petitioner or hisfamily members, which is utterlyfalse, in fact on the said date petitioner himself beat her and driven out from the house demanding to bring the additional dowry, except no other option respondent wentto her parent's home and continuing her stay withher parents.
(ii). Further it is stated that,petitioner never made any efforts to bring back the respondent to his company, the petitioner has no intention to take back respondent for his company and the elders made efforts to pacify the disputes arose between them and the same went in vain. The petitioner intentionallyavoiding the respondent, since 15.05.2021 she is residing under the mercy of her poor parents only and petitioner intentionally neglected her and failed to provide maintenance and she is ready to mend her conjugal duties with petitioner andrender her services to thefamily members if the petitioner assured her to look after herwell and not to subject by harassing her mentally and physically in future. As such respondent prayed this Hon'ble Courtdismissthefiled bythe topetition petitioner seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage.
MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023
610.04,2025
4.Heard both the counsel and perused the case record.
5.To substantiate claim of petitioner, petitioner himself examined asPW-1and examined two independent witnesses, one K.Venkataiah and Harijan Uthamma, who is mother of PW-1 as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 through PW-1. Ex.P1 is original marriage wedding card.
On behalf of the respondent, respondent herself examined as
RW-1 and also examined two independent witnesses i.e., Bikki Maibu and Undyala Ramesh as RW-2 and RW-3 and no documents were marked on her behalf.
6.Poirconsideration is:-
1. Whether the petitioner has established the ground of cruelty by the side of respondent ?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce by dissolvingtheoftheand marriagepetitionerthe respondent?
3.To what relief?
Point No.1.
7.The above petition is filed with a prayer for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner with respondent basing on the cruel acts of petitioner by the respondent. The crux of the petitioner averments are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent is
Pri 803, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023710.04.2025
performed on 18.12.2020 as per Hindu rights and customs prevailing in their community, As usually the respondent joined the company of thepetitionerto lead happy maritallife at Fareedpur Village of
C.C.Kunta Mandal and they lead happy marital life only for few months only. Later, disputes arose between them, respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner on silly reasons and she never cooperated with him, It is the allegation of petitioner that, respondent was always in a mood that, they want to live separately by leaving all his family members by leaving his old aged parents to their fate and she even did not provide food to his mother and compelled his mother to go out of the house. The respondent never intended to continue matrimonial life with petitioner, However, several times panchayats were conducted and theelders of panchayatadvisedrespondent and her family members not to harass the petitioner and on 15.05.2021 respondent herself left his company without giving any information to him or his parents, even tilltoday the respondent or her family members did not turn-upandhe was subjected to cruelty and mental agony and she herself refused him. It is the submission of petitioner that he lost all the hopes of reunion between him and respondent. So the petitioner decided to got separated from the respondent for the above, said
Pri. 8CJ, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023
810.04.2025 reasons. The cause of action of the petition arose on 18.12.2020 at the house of petitioner. It is not possible for them to reside together andcontinue marital tie as such thedecidedto petitionerget separated by obtaining decree of divorce andto proceed in their individual life. As such the petitioner filed the above application for divorce and marked Ex.P1 through him/PW-1. Ex.P1 is the original marriage card.
8.On the other hand, counter filed by the respondent admitting the relationship between the petitioner but denied the allegations of petitioner pleadedin his petition.Further stated that, after the marriage respondentlivedwith the family of petitioner by serving all the domestic works and she never harassed the petitioner at any pointof time. She also further contended that she never made any proposal to get out of the family of petitioner by leaving old aged parents,inturn she submitted that she has rendered her services towards the old aged mother of the petitioner and never quarreled with the petitioner for silly reasons. The respondent further submitted that, it is the petitioner who is inhabit of bad voices used to come to the house in late hours in drunken condition and used to pick-up quarrel with the respondent and used to abuse her parents and also scu, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023910.04.2025
used to beat her indiscriminately on several occasions. In this regard the respondent on several occasions brought to the notice of the petitioner's mother, but she also used to support the harassmentof
Even then, the respondent tolerated the harassment of petitioner.
petitioner witha positive hope that he will change his attitude, instead thedisliketowards respondent and petitionerdeveloped subjected the respondent to harassment both physically and mentally.
In fact, it is the submission of respondent that on 15.05.2021 the petitioner himself beat the respondent and necked out her from his house demanding to bring additional dowry. Even then she tolerated his harassment, continued to stay with her parents, but petitioner did not made any efforts to bring back respondent to his company and he has no intension to take back her to his society. As such, it is the prayed of her that, still she is ready to mend her conjugal duties with thepetitioner and render her services to the family members of petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
9.In order to substantiate the averments of petitioner, he himself was examined as PW-1 and the chief affidavit of PW-1 is nothing but replica of petition averments.Learned counsel for the respondent cross examined petitioner wherein it is testified that the petitioner is
len
MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023
1010.04.2025 usedto earn Rs.10,000/- per month and their marriage was a arranged marriage and denied that he has taken Rs.2,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold as dowry and it was deposed by him that he is only the son to their parents and he has two sisters and the marriages of their sisters was performed about 10 years back and they are living in their respective families and one sister is living at Narayanapet and another sister is living at Ibrahimpatnamof Hyderabad and his mother is also living at his native place. It is admitted by petitioner that, he did not stated about the manner of disputes occurred in their family to show cruel acts of respondent, but admitted that he used to come in the evening at 05:00 P.M., unlike pleaded by respondent that, he used to come home in the night in a drunken condition and denied that respondent never abused him. It is also specifically denied by the petitioner that, he used to come to the house in the late nights at 12:00 clock in drunken stage and used to harass the respondent and denied for all other suggestions put forth by the respondent counsel.
10.Later PW-2 was examined who is an independent witness. As perhis chief affidavit,it is statedby him that the respondent left the society ofpetitioner on one day without informing to the petitioner
and his family members and it is his evidence that the “Lh
SCJ, MBNR.
i
HMOP No.07 of 202310.04.2025
used to harass the petitioner to kept a separate family. It is admitted
PW-2 that the petitionerfamily is a big family with byoldaged parentsandotherfamilymembersin the saidhouse.It is his allegation that, the respondent do not want to stay in a big family, as such she used to harass the petitioner to set-up a separate family.
Furtherthat,timestried deposedthoughpetitionerto many convenience the respondent, she did not hear the words and left his society and startedto living with her parents. PW-2 was also cross examined by the respondent counsel wherein it is elicited that he is resident of Durganagar at Hyderabad and he used to do coolie work daily and he also stated that he attended the marriage of petitioner and respondent and it is admitted byPW-2 that at the time of marriage the respondent presented one motor bike and some amount and denied stating that the respondent presented Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner as dowry, but no such acts of respondent are elicited which enlights this Court that, such cruel and grave acts drove the petitionerto get separate from other spouse and become impossible from them live together.
11.Later petitioner also examined PW-3 namely Harijan Uthamma, who is mother of petitioner. As per her evidence, respondent herein
A
Pri. SCJ, ‘MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023
1210.04.2025
Joined the company of petitioner only for few months and they did not livedhappilyfrom longtime.ThoughPW-3with others along conducted several panchayats, the respondent did not change her attitude and continued behaving in a childish manner. PW-3 is the mother of petitioner and as per her evidence itself, her family is a big joint family and the respondent always used to demand the petitioner to put-up a separate family, when the petitioner did not accept for it, then the respondent herein tortured the petitioner for silly reasons and she used to go to her parents house without any intimation.
Later,PW-3 was also cross examined by the respondent counsel, wherein it was elicited that at present the petitioner is staying at
Hyderabad and PW-3 is staying at her village.PW-3 came to know about the disputes through his son over a phone and denied that the petitionerfiledthis case by making all false allegation to eliminate respondentfromhis conjugal society and to remarry with another women by taking all the facilities including dowry. However, since
PW-3 is his mother and the evidence of PW-3 has to be scrutinized carefully and she come under interested witness category who has interestover the out comesof result.she also did not However, mentioned any acts of respondent which can become part of cruelty
lt.
HMOP No.07 of 20231310.04.2025
northeactsofrespondent aresuchthat theydrove the life of petitioner miserableand impossibleto livealong with respondent.
12.Later after closer of petitioner side evidence RW-1 who is the respondent hereinfiled her chief affidavit which is nothing but repetitionofcounter averments denying the allegationsofpetitioner made in the petition. During the cross examination she denied for the suggestion that she frequently used toquarrel with her husbandand it is also denied by her that when her husband refused to stay separately, she came outofthe house and started living with her parentsandas perhercross examination the petitioner is working as accountant at Hyderabad and denied that though several panchayats are conducted, she refused to join the societyof petitioner.
13.LaterRW-2independent witness isexamined,whereinhe deposed about the marriageofpetitioner and respondent and it is stated through his chief affidavit that, there arose differences between.
petitioner and respondent and he cameto know about the bad voices of petitioner and he used to come late hours in drunken condition and supported the allegationsof RW-1made in the counter. During the elicited that he is father in relation crossexaminationit isto respondent and denied stating that respondent used to quarrel with
Pri. SCJ, ‘MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023
1410.04.2025 the petitioner and she left the society of the petitioner without any reason and denied stating that though several requests are made by the petitioner, respondent failed to join the society of petitioner and it is also denied that respondent herself demanded the petitioner for separation and used to quarrel with petitioner to come out from the family. Even as per the cross examination of RW-2 noting is elicited which proved the allegations of petitioner and he with stood to his chief examination.
14.Later RW-3 another independent witness was also examined and he also deposed in the same lines as that of RW-2. During the cross examination it is elicited that he is the panchayat elder who attended thepanchayat between petitioner andrespondent.It is stated by him that, he has attended fivepanchayatsconducted between petitioner and respondent.But, denied that even on the requestofpetitioner, respondent failed to join the society of petitioner.
Apartfromthatelicitedthe nothingincrossexaminationof respondentswitnesses with regard to harassment and cruelty of petitioner.
15.As per the evidence put forth before this Court it is amply proved that the marriagetiebetweenboththeand petitioner
Pri. SCJ, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 20231510.04.2025
respondent is stringinglike a pnedulam and theyhavenot been able to live together. As per Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, since the petitioner has come-upbeforethis Courtfor divorce on the ground of cruelty, then the initial onus is on the petitioner to prove the same. In fact when a petition is filed under Sec.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining divorce, the petitioner has to establish cruelty which is summarized as per Hindu Marriage Act is read as below.
Admittedly the presentHMOPisfiled U/Sec 13(1) (ia) of Hindu
MarriageActwhich reads asfollows:
1,iv=
1. Any marriage solemnized whether before or after thecommencement of thison a petition act,may, presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party :
1(a) Has after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty or
16.Hence, in order to obtain decree under Sec. 13(1), (ia) of Hindu
Marriage Act, the petitioner has to establish that the respondent treated him with cruelty which made him impossible to live with her.
In catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is time and again
Pri. SCJ,
HMOP No.07 of 2023
1610.04.2025 reiterated thatto constitute cruelty theconductof complainant should be “grave act weighing”, so as to come to the conclusion that petitioner spouse cannotbe reasonably expected to live with the other spouse,itmustbe something more serious that wear and tear of married life and the petitioner herein in support of his contentions and allegations he himself testified as PW-1 and marked Ex.P1. As per theaffidavitsubmitteditis exactlyidentical byPW-1tothe allegations of the petitioner. Therefore,it is unnecessary to again reiterate the contents of it. This Court perused the document i.e.,
Ex.P1 which is marriage wedding card. However, there is no dispute thattheisthewedded respondentlegallywifeofpetitioner.
Undisputedly at present the respondent is living with her parents.
However, as deposed no material is placed before this Court to show that, the petitioner made attempts to get respondent in to his life. The evidence of PW-1 is that, soon after the marriage respondent used to quarrel with himfor silly reasons and used to leave the house without any intimations to him and to his familymembers. Admittedly the petitioner family is a jointfamily. Though several panchayats are conducted,as per theof respondent witness,nor the evidence respondentneitherthewantedleave petitionertotogether.
PA.
HMOP No.07 of 20231710.04.2025,
Surprisingly,from the evidence of respondent/RW-1 she out-traitly deposed that, sheis ready and willing tojointhe society of petitioner and she is ready to serve the parentsofpetitioner.Evenduring cross examination she never deposed that sheis not interested to live with him. It is further evidenceof PW-1thatafter the marriagethe respondent used to harass him and used to insist him to shift the family and forced him to make a separatefamily. Upon that, when the petitioner refused and intimated her about his responsibility towards his parents as they areold aged and sufferingold agedelements, then the respondent used to quarrel with him and on one occasion she left the petitioner without intimating him. Per contra,it is the allegation of respondent that, it is the petitioner who himself used to come in a drunken state and usedto beat her indiscriminately andon one day he necked out her from his house. Admittedly, at present respondent is at her parental house. Though, both the parties examined their respective witnesses neither of them stated about theparticular incident and any grave acts of respondent,from which it can be concluded that respondent was very cruel at petitioner. In fact, on the particular day of incidentthere was a quarrel amongboth partiesand
a
petitioner alleged to have beatrespondentin thepublicfor which she
Pri. SCJ, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 2023
1810.04.2025, wasforcedto callpolice by dialing “100°. Apart from that, the evidence of the respondent itself is that, since the date of marriage the petitioner was irresponsible and addicted to bad voices and used to comeinadrunkenstateofmindand usedtobeather indiscriminately. As such having no other go she was forced leave the house of petitioner. Admittedly, at present respondent is residing at her parents house and further it is also the allegation of respondent that, he is harassing the respondent for want of additional dowry.
However, the respondent failed to file any documentary evidence in supportofher allegation or any compliant According to the copy.
respondent the petitioner is working as accountant at Hyderabad and admittedlypetitioner also said thathe is earning an amount of
Rs.10,000/-month.It istheof petitioner that,the percase respondent never joined his society and she started disliking him.
Unlike other cases in the matrimonial dispute the evidence has to be scrutinized with great caution keeping the sacramental bond between thethat parties.Though,petitionerallegedrespondentnever interested to live with him and she herself left his society. He did not come forward before this Court by enlightening this Court with specific harassment which made him impossible to live with her,
we
HMOP No.07 of 2023.1910.04.2025
except stating that she wants to make separate family.However, he fails to file any document to show that he made attempt to get back respondent into hissociety.from the rival pleadings and Hence, material placed before this Court, it can be said that both parties are makingallegations against each other without any unsupporting evidence except oral self serving statements.
17.As such, at this juncture this Court inclined to look into the provision under which the above petition isfiled, i.e., Sec.13(1){ia) of the said Act, it isextensively narrated the conceptof cruelty as recognized in Judicial parlance and it has to be seen whether cruelty and disassociation of conjugal life is proved by petitioner or not.
18.Though, both parties are said to have lived for a certain period, the disputes between them are in such a nature that the relation between them is irretrievable break down and the allegations levelled againstrespondentaresensitiveinnaturefor verygranting dissolutionof their marriage under Sec.13(1){la) of the said Act.
However, the petitioner has to prove cruelty, since burden lies on him.
Though, the petitionerdid not support the allegations though oral or documentary evidence, it is convinced by the petitioner that even if
x
Pri. SCJ, ‘MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 202320
10.04.2025.
such kind of documentary evidence is produced it causes humiliation to the respondent which cannot be retrieved back. As such this Court opines that, mere allegation cannot constitute a cruelty. Therefore, such allegations can be construed as a blatant lie. Though, cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, the meaning and definition of the word cruelty has to be perceived from the material placedbefore this Court. It is also alleged by the petitioner that, on one occasion respondent left his company without any intimation to him or his family members on the allegation of to get separate family.
Even the said allegation is also remained intact, without there being any supportiveevidence. As forasabovesaid allegation is concerned, it is bluntly denied by respondent and stated that she is ready to join his society all the time. If not, the petitioner has to prove before this
Court that the cruelty or behavior of one spouse towards the other shall cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of them, later it is not safe for him or her. As per mental cruelty is concerned the feeling with one spouse with the other should cause mental apprehension and it shall be difficult to establish the agony. This Court opines that, the decree of divorce would not justify the parties. As there is a lack of sufficient evidence and the evidence is not adequate proof to support
Pri! SCJ, MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 202310.04.2025
21 allegations and which claims as they are groundsfor petitioner divorce.
19.On reanalysis of both oral and documentary evidence, viewed from all the angels there is no evidence on record which goes to show that she left the company of the petitioner without there being any reason.Even during the cross examination respondent denied for all the allegations and suggestions, that apart respondent is ready and willingto join with him. By examining respondent she has disproved the case of petitioner and brought it on record that, she always showed her interest to join with the petitioner. It is the petitioner who did not take any steps to take back the respondent into his life to lead amicable marital life. Though petitioner contended that there were panchayats and meetingsforre-union but no elder was brought before this Court on his behalf. Apart from that, except oral evidence stating that respondent threatened them with dire consequences, there is no evidence as recorded to prove his allegations. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has reasonable apprehension about the safety of his life and the co-habitation with the respondent would cause physical and mental torture, however the petitioner also sought to make out a case, but no such evidence iselicited which shows that she deserted
SC, 1. MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 202322
10.04.2025, him without there being any reason. However,from both the rival contentionsit is noticed that all endeavors have beenmade to persuade the parties tolive together, but it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other part, basing on allegations made by them against each other.
At this juncture, this Court wants to rely on the citation of
Hon'bleCourtbetweenv. Jagdish
SupremeinSmt.Mayadevi
Prasad reported in Civil Appeal No.877 of 2007, decided on
21.02.2007, wherein it is held that;
“cruelty’ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour,It is theconductinrelationto or in respect of is a course or matrimonialdutiesandobligations.Cruelty conduct of one,which is adverselyaffectingtheother.The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquirymust begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in themindofthewhethercausedreasonable spouse,it apprehension thatit would be harmful or injurious to live with the other.it is a matter of inference to be drawn by Ultimately, taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.there may be a case where However, the conductcomplained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. in such cases.the crueltywill beestablished if the conduct itself is proved or admitted”.
“Allquarrelsmustbeweighed fromthatpoint of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and asnoted above.always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status”.
HMOP No.07 of 20232310.04.2025,
Further this Court also wants to lay hands on the citation of
Shobha Raniv. Madhukar Reddi reported inCivil Appeal
No.3013 of 1987, decided on 12.11.1987 wherein it is held that;
“Thecrueltybementalorphysical,intentionalor may unintentional.If it is physical the Court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree, If it is mental the probiem presents difficulty. First, the enquriy must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment.Second, the impact of such Whether i caused treatmentinthemind of the spouse. reasonable apprehension (hat it would be harmful or injurious to it is a matter of interference to be live with the other. Ultimately, drawn by taking ito account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. The may, however, be cases where the conduct complained ofitselfisbad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases,the crueltywill be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted”, “It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked changeinthelife aroundInmatrimonialduties and us. responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varyingdegrees from house to house or personto person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the Court should not search for standard in life. A set offacts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged maylargely dependtheof life the parties are upontype accustomed to or their economic and social conditions,It may also dependupon their cultureand humanvalues to whichthey attach importance. We. the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life”.
20.In view of the above discussion from the reliance placed in the above judgments, it can be safely stated that petitioner failedto establish the acts of respondent, that droves him impossible to live with respondent. The set of facts stigmatized as cruelty must be
et
PH. SCJ,
MBNR.
HMOP No.07 of 202324
10.04.2025 proved. Cruelty must be established with the alleged facts, but as per the petition no such grave acts or facts are elicited. In view of the above discussion and all the points raised by the petitioner in his petition aswellas through his evidence, it can be said that the hasfailedto establish the actsof respondent which petitioner becomes impossible for the parties to live togegher. Accordingly, the pointis answered against the petitioner in favour of the respondent.
21. Point No.:
In view of the findings in point No.1 the petitioner has failed to establish the ground of cruelity in the acts of respondent, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get a decree of divorce by dissolving theirThisisansweredthe marriage.pointaccordingly against petitioner.
22. Point No.3:-
In view of the findings in point Nos.1 and 2, petitioner is not entitled for the relief and the same ts liable to be dismissed.
result,petition is dismissed without costs.
In the ‘Typed to my dictation by stenographer GradeMl,corrected and pronounced the 10" day of April.2025.
PRL. SENIOR(CIVIL JUDGE,
MAHABUBNAGAR.
HMOP No.07 of 202325
10.04.2025
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the Petitione:
PW-1:D.Shiva Kumar PW-2: K.Venkatesh PW-3: Harijan Uthamma
For the Respondent:-
RW-1: M.Aruna @ Lasya
RW-2: Bikki Maibu
RW-3: Undyala Ramesh
Exhibits marked
For the Petitioner:-
Ex.P1is original marriage wedding card.
For the Respondent:-
itws
-NIL- y
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MAHABUBNAGAR.