O.P.No. 54 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, NALGONDA
Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2021
Present: Sri M. Nagaraju,
Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Addl. Dist. & Sessions Court,
Nalgonda
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
Between:
************************* … Petitioner/Husband
And
************************* … Respondent/Wife
This petition is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri M. Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri T. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
:: ORDER ::
1. The petitioner/husband has filed this petition against the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with respondent held on 10-03-2012.
2. The averments in the petition are as follows:-
(a) That the petitioner is the husband of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 10-03-2012 at Shivanjaneya Function Hall, Nalgonda according to the rituals and rites prevailing in the Hindu religion and witnessed by the caste elders and relatives. The marriage was arranged one at the instance of the elders.
In fact the respondent was not shown any interest on petitioner to marry him since she feels that age of the petitioner is more than her. However, on the force of the parents of respondent compromised by the respondent saying that the petitioner is working as software job and having house in the locality of Ramanthapur who is settled person as such the parents of the respondent forced to marry the petitioner
Page 1 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 without her interest or consent, this act was not known to the petitioner at the time of marriage, but it is known to the petitioner after marriage, however, the marriage was completed.
(b) It is submitted that originally the petitioner hails from the Dornakal village,
Warangal District, presently parents of the petitioner is residing there. In
Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District one own house is possessed by the parents of the petitioner where the petitioner residing. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent came to Ramanthapur and started new life. After one week of marriage, when the first night ceremony was arranged, the respondent refused to consummate the marriage with the petitioner by reasoning that she was very tired in the marriage works as such she requested to postpone the same, accordingly, it was postponed and one or other reasons it is continuously postponed by the respondent days together. One day she went to the hospital by reasoning not feeling well, after that the petitioner tried to consummate the marriage he was told by the respondent falsely that the doctor advised her not to participate in sex for at least three months as she was not medically fit and she told that she did not interest to having children. The respondent warned the petitioner not to disclose about the non-consummation either to her or his family members, in spite if he told, she threaten to commit suicide, as such, the petitioner did not disclose the matter to anybody. The respondent stated that her marriage was performed by her parents without her willing, consent, interest and she forced to marry the petitioner by her parents since the petitioner is having own house and hand sum job, after these statements the petitioner gone into deep shock. The petitioner is doing his software job and used to went to the office morning 9.00 a.m., and return back to the house at 8.00 p.m., the respondent always used to sit in the house alone by thinking something even in the presence of the petitioner in the house and never talked with the petitioner, she never prepared the food in the
Page 2 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 house and daily she used to take the meals from the hotel, sometimes when phone call is came she used to go the lonely place in one of room or on the building attend the phone call by minutes together. Whenever, the petitioner made a phone call to the respondent from his office, her phone is always in engage mode, even the respondent did not call back to the petitioner. The respondent did not care the petitioner and his parents even she did not use to wash clothes of the petitioner. As a tradition the petitioner and the respondent went to his in-laws house at Nalgonda there also they are not shared their bed, and she slept out of petitioner, in fact she refused. In fact the parents of the respondent asked the respondent about her happy leading matrimonial life, the respondent suppressed the fact about the access with the petitioner and she falsely stated that they are leading matrimonial life with sexual enjoyment, next day they came to Hyderabad. Day to day the respondent shows her real sadist character towards the petitioner.
(c) It is submitted that on 10-04-2012 on that night the petitioner tried to consummate with the respondent on that the respondent refused to allow the petitioner to react for this the respondent immediately went into kitchen room and burn herself in order to commit suicide, out of that incident an injury was happened on the left hand, the petitioner rescued her and treated in the house with burnal.
The said committing of suicide intimated to both the family members, the parents of the petitioner worried about this incident, but the parents of the respondent taken very easily and advised that is very common to her and advised the petitioner to adjust the same, when the petitioner questioned about all these bad things then the respondent replied with angry that ‘when I was in Intermediate education as my father scrolled me on my personal reasons, I refused to eat the food for a week days to get in control of my parents by threatening I will commit suicide by hunger’.
As such she warned not to touch him, if do so again she will repeat the same and the respondent given threaten to implicate in criminal cases. It is also understood
Page 3 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 that the family members of the respondent were leave the respondent on the petitioner by name of marriage tie. It is submitted that after that incident the respondent totally stopped talking with the petitioner even did not at least respect to him as husband. Without any alternative the petitioner is daily eating the hotel food by knowing a fact that health will be damaged.
(d) It is submitted that the respondent always threatens that her father by name
Peddulu is having Rowdy back ground and his uncle (babai) by name Venkanna is
Politician and having power to harass the petitioner if she thinks and they are ready to end the life of the petitioner and his family members. It is submitted that the respondent went to her parents house in the first week of May, 2012 for a period of fifteen days. She returns to matrimonial house on 20-05-2012 with unhappy feelings she did not talk with the petitioner for two days. On 22-05-2012 in the night when the petitioner tried to talk and touch her body, for that the respondent reacted very cruelly and rushed out of room and picked the HIT poison and sprayed into her mouth, after noticed the same the petitioner rescued her, on that with angry the respondent sprayed the HIT on the petitioner.
(e) It is submitted that father of the petitioner by name Narasimha Rao came to petitioner’s house at Ramanthapur on 01-06-2012 informed about ill health of the mother of the petitioner and requested the respondent to come to Dornakal village, on that the respondent disinterest went to Dornakal along with father-in-law, she stayed there for two days and for treatment of physiotherapy, mother of the petitioner was shifted to Khammam where brother of the petitioner is residing. The respondent not interested to stay at Khammasm and made a phone call to the petitioner and demanded to drop her to her parents house Nalgonda immediately on that the petitioner is in Hyderabad and requested the respondent he will come on next day, then on that day 05-06-2012 the respondent tried to commit suicide by
Page 4 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 taking number of unknown medicine tablets in a unconscious condition the respondent admitted in Mamatha Hospital, Khammam and on 06-06-2012 she went to Nalgonda along with her brother and mother since then she is residing there and as on today there is any contact between the parties. It is submitted that after that his parents and himself number of times tried to settle the matter by way of full stop marriage relation since the marriage was performed without interest, consent, willing of the respondent and respondent is always and continuously trying to committing suicide in order to die as such there is very apprehension about the life of the petitioner in the hands of the respondent, but the respondent and her parents did not take any steps to settle the matter, in spite of that the respondent falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC on 07-01-2013 in Crime No.06 of 2013 of W.P.S., Nalgonda against the petitioner and his entire family members, which is pending.
(f) It is submitted that after the marriage the respondent started behaving in manner becoming of abnormal wife and she refused to discharge her conjugal duties. She would not allow the petitioner to touch her and any attempts on her resisted violently. The petitioner and the respondent even not consummated the marriage as on today and they did not lived as husband and wife and despite best attempt of the petitioner when the petitioner tried to consummate her she warned that she would raise a hue and cry and will commit suicide. The petitioner was not allowed to share the common bed and at times she bolted the door from inside and the petitioner was slept in outside the room.
(g) It is submitted that the respondent kicked the petitioner out of the bed. Both are sleeping in different rooms. She always abused the petitioner by calling him as a waste fellow even the petitioner is unfit to tend to her footwear. The petitioner never intimated this harassment to neighbours or other relatives other than family
Page 5 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 members of the both parties, if intimate petitioner feels very shame if this type of situation is known to others and in the society since become a laughing stock of the entire organization and he be labeled as a weakling. The petitioner has been subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent in an extreme degree. Even she took unilateral decision that not to have children. The petitioner sustained reprehensible conduct studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental, health or deriving sadist pleasure. The respondent thrown her pusthelathadu and mettelu from her body, the petitioner bored lot of humiliation.
(h) It is submitted that in such a manner the petitioner lead marriage life without love and hate days together, in this period the respondent show hell. It is submitted that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty both physically and mentally by using abnormal filthy language and the petitioner tolerated the harassment of the respondent with a fond hope that she will change her life in future by expecting the better future but the respondent did not change her attitude.
(i) It is submitted that the reasons best known to her the respondent developed heavy grudge against the petitioner and started harassment mentally and physically and on that the petitioner went an extent to decide end the life of the petitioner, but withdrawn the same since their parents are alone and no one can looked her after, who cared him with love and affection brought up him with hard work to this stage. It is submitted that in these circumstances it is not possible to the petitioner to live with the respondent, and there is every movement apprehension about his life is danger with the hands of the respondent who is always trying to commit suicide, moreover the respondent never turned up for matrimonial life after 06-06-2012 as such it is suggest that the respondent is not interested to lead the matrimonial life with the petitioner. It is submitted that the
Page 6 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 respondent has withdrawn the society of the petitioner from 06-06-2012 onwards without any reasonable excuse and the petitioner had made several efforts for reunion but the respondent is not in a mood and interest to live with the petitioner, she is intentionally refusing with the company of the petitioner, likewise the petitioner is suffering with great mental agony with the attitude of the respondent and the petitioner who is just 37 years had lost all his hopes that there will not be any matrimonial reunion with the respondent. Further, the petitioner can no longer wait for the respondent. The respondent has not cooperative with the petitioner to lead the matrimonial life which is against the concept of the marriage and in other hand the petitioner is not ready to do any illegal acts to fulfill his sexual thrust. The petitioner faced the cruelty by the respondent by means of physically, mentally torture, and words, mere silence, violent and non-violent. It is very apprehension to the petitioner that if he lives with respondent it is harm and injury to life, health, reputation, the working career by the acts of the respondent and the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live together as such without any alternative relief except to approach this Court for seeking the decree of divorce from the respondent in order to lead his remaining life peacefully.
(j) It is submitted that all the above facts are constitutes mental, physical cruelty against the petitioner and the petitioner had made out the case under
Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner is entitled for divorce with the respondent by dissolving the marriage between them. Hence, the petition.
3. The respondent is filed her counter.
The contents of the counter of respondent are as follows:
(a) It is submitted that in reply to the contents of Para No.I and II require no specific reply as they are descriptive particulars of the parties to the petition. In reply to the contents of Para No.III (1) the relationship and marriage performance
Page 7 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute and require no specific reply. The further contention of the petitioner in the said paragraph that the respondent did not evince any interest in marrying the petitioner because the age of petitioner was more than the respondent is false and far away from the truth and the petitioner called upon to prove the same. The further contention of the petitioner in the said paragraph the allegation that the marriage with the petitioner took place against the will and pleasure of the respondent is also false and absurd, fabricated to seek dissolution of marriage by means of divorce. In reply to the contents of Para No.III (2) the native place and residence of the petitioner is not in dispute but the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent refused to consummate marriage on a pretext that she was exhausted in marriage rituals and ceremony and the consummation was subsequently postponed to some other day was absolutely false and fabricated one. The petitioner affirms that the consummation of marriage took place between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner calls upon the respondent to prove each and every allegation made against the respondent. The allegation that the petitioner never cooked food
for the respondent and the respondent used to have meals in the hotel and the
respondent’s phone was always found busy were also absolutely false. These are invented to get rid of the respondent as a legal wife. The further allegation that the consummation of marriage did not happen at the in-laws house as per traditions and the advances of the petitioner in consummating the marriage were spurned by the respondent was also absolutely false. The allegation that the respondent attempted to commit suicide by burning herself in the kitchen and the petitioner timely rescued her from the kitchen and treated her burns by applying Burnal ointment is also absolutely false, a fabricated story. The petitioner continued his imaginary stories alleging that the respondent wanted to threaten the petitioner’s family members by attempting to commit suicide and when the petitioner brought
Page 8 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 these intimidations of suicide by the respondent to the notice of her parents they took it nonchalantly were also false allegations. The petitioner invented a false story that the respondent while studying intermediate, threatened her father that she would commit suicide through starvation was also absolutely false. In reply to the contents of Para No.3, the entire allegations made by the petitioner are absolutely false and the petitioner is called upon to prove each and every allegation and the real facts are stated in the additional grounds of this counter and by considering the same, the Hon’ble Court may dismiss petition of the petitioner with cost. The petitioner’s allegation that the respondent reluctantly went to
Dornakal village in Warangal along with her father-in-law to see the petitioner’s ailing mother. Later, when petitioner’s mother shifted to a hospital in Khammam for physiotherapy, the respondent was not interested to serve her and stay at
Khammam and insisted the petitioner to drop the respondent at her parent’s house in Nalgonda. When the petitioner told her that he would pick her up next day, the respondent attempted to commit suicide by swallowing some tablets on 05-06-2012 and the respondent was admitted at Mamatha Hospital at Khammam.
This allegation is absolutely false, another story of a berserk mind and the contention that the petitioner and his parents several times tried to settle the matter amicably and this is a wrong presentation. The respondent and her parents did not take any measures to settle the matter is baseless allegation, fabricated by the desperate petitioner. The respondent submits that the petitioner and his parents subjected the respondent with physical and mental cruelty and harassed the respondent for the extortion of additional dowry amount. Unable to endure all these inhumane atrocities, the respondent has been compelled to file a case against the petitioner and her family members for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A IPC.
Page 9 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
(b) It is submitted that in reply to the contents of para No.5 the allegations are absolutely false and the petitioner is called upon to prove each and every allegation imputed against her. All the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent have been fabricated by the petitioner for the purpose of filing present false petition. With regard to the allegations made by the petitioner that he bore all these vicissitudes of marriage with courage and fortitude with a fond hope that the respondent would mend her ways was also false and baseless imputation.
(c) It is submitted that in reply to the contents of Para No.7, the allegations against the respondent are false and untenable and the petitioner is called upon to prove the same. In reply to the contents of para No.8, the petitioner did not make out any case under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of divorce. There is no cause of action to file the suit and alleged cause of action is invented by the petitioner for the purpose of filing present false petition. The remaining paragraphs are legal in nature and require no specific reply and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of divorce, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(d) The respondent further submits that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the marriage with the petitioner took place on 10-03-2012 at
Shivanjaneya Function Hall, D.V.K. road, Nalgonda town and District.
(e) It is submitted that the parents paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash, 20 tulas of gold ornaments, 50,000/- worth household articles to the petitioner. The respondent followed the petitioner to his residence soon after the marriage and had all conjugal pleasures related to body and mind. Further, the respondent submits that the petitioner started harassing her in drunken condition both physically and mentally and the petitioner used to share his pre marital affairs with the respondent causing her utmost mental agony and used to threaten that he was not interested
Page 10 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 in the respondent and would soon relinquish her. Further, the respondent submits that the petitioner started demanding additional Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry. If that demand was not fulfilled, he used to threaten the respondent that he would desert her. The parents of the petitioner also supported the petitioner in all his demands and threats. They also indulged in instigating the petitioner for additional dowry amount and harassing the respondent for that purpose. The respondent submits that her mother-in-law used to describe the petitioner’s previous pre marital affair and used to prevent the respondent in contacting the petitioner and the respondent’s mother-in-law used to create rift and rupture between the petitioner and the respondent by concocting false stories. The mother-in-law of the respondent is the major instigator in worsening the harmony of the marriage. The respondent submits that having vexed with the actions and atrocities of the petitioner she came back to her parental house at Nalgonda on 06-06-2012 and started living with her parents. The respondent submits that her parents conducted the panchayath with petitioner at Dornakal village, Mandal of Warangal District, on the respondent’s side M. Sathyanarayana, M. Venkanna, V. Venkatesh,
V. Chaindraiah, Masi Reddy acted as elders. In the panchayath, the petitioner was very adamant and arrogant with his super ego of masculinity, vociferously refused to receive her to his matrimonial house and in extreme anger left the panchayath.
The respondent submits that all her positive efforts in joining the conjugal society of the petitioner were not fructified and the petitioner arrogantly refused to take back the respondent into his society. The respondent submits that having been spurned by the petitioner, she filed a case against the petitioner for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of DP Act crime No.06/2013 and the same is pending for consideration. The respondent submits that the petition also was filed by her for maintenance against the petitioner. Further, the respondent submits that
Page 11 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 she also filed a petition seeking the relief to provide protection from the petitioner under the provisions of domestic violence Act.
(f) It is submitted that in view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
4. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. Vempati Srinivas Rao and B. Shankar Rao are examined as PWs.2 and 3 respectively on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent herself examined as RW-1. Munasu Laxmi, who is mother of the respondent is examined as RW-2 and M. Prasanna Kumar, who is the brother of the respondent is examined as RW-3 and no documents are exhibited on behalf of the respondent.
Ex.A-1 is the wedding card, Ex.A-2 to A-4 are the wedding photos, Ex.A-5 is certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2013 of W.P.S.,
Nalgonda and Ex.A-6 is the case sheet of the respondent.
5. Heard the arguments.
The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the citations reported in 1) “Kanchan Devi v.
Promod Kumar Mittal, AIR 1996 SC 3192” and 2) “Durga Prasanna Tripathy v.
Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 352” in support of his arguments.
6. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage with the respondent held on 10-03-2012 u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?
7. POINT:
The petitioner/husband has filed this petition against the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with respondent held on 10-03-2012.
Page 12 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
8. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and their marriage took place on 10-03-2012 at Shivanjaneya Function Hall, Nalgonda according to the rituals and rites prevailing the Hindu Religion. The marriage was arranged one at the instance of the elders.
9. It is the averment of the petitioner that the respondent was not shown any interest on petitioner to marry him since she feels that age of the petitioner is more than her. However, on the force of the parents of respondent compromised by the respondent saying that the petitioner is working as software job and having house in the locality of Ramanthapur who is settled person as such the parents of the respondent forced to marry the petitioner without her interest or consent, this act was not known to the petitioner at the time of marriage, but it is known to the petitioner after the marriage. After one week of marriage when the first night ceremony was arranged, the respondent refused to consummate the marriage with the petitioner by reasoning that she was very tired in the marriage works as such she requested to postpone the same, accordingly it was postponed and one or together. One day she went to the hospital by reasoning not feeling well, after that the petitioner tried to consummate the marriage he was told by the respondent falsely that the doctor was advised her not to participate in sex for at least three months as she was not medically fit and she told that she did not interest to having children. The respondent warned the petitioner not to disclose about the non- consummation either to her or his family members, in spite if he told, she threaten to commit suicide, as such, the petitioner did not disclose the matter to anybody.
The respondent stated that her marriage was performed by her parents without her willing, consent, interest and she forced to marry the petitioner by her parents since the petitioner is having own house and hand sum job, after these statements the petitioner gone into deep shock. The respondent did not care the petitioner and his parents even she did not use to wash clothes of the petitioner.
Page 13 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
10. It is the averment of the petitioner that the respondent always threatens that her father by name Peddulu is having Rowdy back ground and his uncle (babai) by name Venkanna is Politician and having power to harass the petitioner if she thinks and they are ready to end the life of the petitioner and his family members. The respondent went to her parents house in the first week of May, 2012 for a period of fifteen days. She returns to matrimonial house on 20-05-2012 with unhappy feelings she did not talk with the petitioner for two days. On 22-05-2012 in the night when the petitioner tried to talk and touch her body, for that the respondent reacted very cruelly and rushed out of room and picked the HIT poison and spray into her mouth, after noticed the same the petitioner rescued her, on that with angry the respondent spray the HIT on the petitioner.
11. It is the averment of the petitioner that his parents and himself number of times tried to settle the matter by way of full stop marriage relation since the marriage was performed without interest, consent, willing of the respondent and respondent is always and continuously trying to committing suicide in order to die as such there is very apprehension about the life of the petitioner in the hands of the respondent, but the respondent and her parents did not take any steps to settle the matter, in spite of that the respondent falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC on 07-01-2013 in Crime No.06 of 2013 of W.P.S.,
Nalgonda against the petitioner and his entire family members, which is pending.
12. It is the averment of the petitioner that after the marriage the respondent started behaving in manner becoming of abnormal wife and she refused to discharge her conjugal duties. She would not allow the petitioner to touch her and any attempts on her resisted violently. The petitioner and the respondent even not consummated the marriage as on today and they did not lived as husband and wife and despite best attempt of the petitioner when the petitioner tried to consummate
Page 14 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 her she warned that she would raise a hue and cry and will commit suicide. The petitioner was not allowed to share the common bed and at times she bolted the door from inside and the petitioner was slept in outside the room. The respondent has withdrawn the society of the petitioner from 06-06-2012 onwards without any reasonable excuse and the petitioner had made several efforts for reunion but the respondent is not in a mood and interest to live with the petitioner, she is intentionally refusing with the company of the petitioner, likewise the petitioner is suffering with great mental agony with the attitude of the respondent and the petitioner who is just 37 years had lost all his hopes that there will not be any matrimonial reunion with the respondent. Further, the petitioner can no longer wait
for the respondent. The respondent has not cooperative with the petitioner to lead
the matrimonial life which is against the concept of the marriage and in other hand the petitioner is not ready to do any illegal acts to fulfill his sexual thrust. The petitioner faced the cruelty by the respondent by means of physically, mentally torture, and words, mere silence, violent and non-violent. It is very apprehension to the petitioner that if he lives with respondent it is harm and injury to life, health, reputation, the working career by the acts of the respondent and the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live together as such without any alternative relief except to approach this Court for seeking the decree of divorce from the respondent in order to lead his remaining life peacefully.
13. In order to prove the averments, the petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and PWs.2 and 3 are examined on behalf of the petitioner. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the petitioner.
14. The petitioner filed chief affidavit and he was examined as PW-1 and he reiterated the averments of the petition in his chief affidavit and got marked
Exs.A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-1 is the is the wedding card, Ex.A-2 to A-4 are the wedding
Page 15 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 photos, Ex.A-5 is certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2013 of
W.P.S., Nalgonda and Ex.A-6 is the case sheet of the respondent.
15. PW-1 further deposed in his chief-affidavit that the respondent consumed the tablets meant for sugar and B.P. belonging to his mother, his brother feared about the act of the respondent and got her admitted in Mamatha Hospital,
Khammam, O.P.No.1206051135, dated 06-06-2012, I.P.No.06/0553/12 and she was discharged on the next day. PW-1 deposed that the act of the respondent in consuming the medicines belonging to his mother caused lot of mental agony. It is an attempt to cause mental agony to him and it is an act of cruelty committed by the respondent towards him. Pw-1 deposed that his parents were shocked by the act of the respondent and they immediately informed the parents of the respondent about the attempt of the respondent to commit suicide and the parents came to
Khammam and took the respondent to Nalgonda. Since then the respondent is staying at Nalgonda. PW-1 deposed that thereafter, she also initiated criminal action against him before the W.P.S., Nalgonda which is numbered in Crime No.06 of 2013 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC on 07-01-2013. She also implicated his mother who is physically unfit to be moved from the place to place.
Further after full length of trial the Court of JFCM (Excise Court), Nalgonda found him and his mother as not guilty of offences. Further the learned Magistrate tried to re-consulate the matter and suggested the respondent to live with the respondent and cooperate with him in having full sexual life. But the respondent adamantly told to the Court that she is willing to have a child by way of IVF (Test Tube Baby), without participating sex and taking the semen of the petitioner to her virgin and to beget a child. Thus, the respondent has no respect for him. PW-1 deposed that he lost hope of living any matrimonial life with the respondent and he is young aged 40 years and long life to lead a normal life by indulging sexual life. Whereas, the respondent has aversion for sex and she has no liking to have any sex with him.
Page 16 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
Therefore, the marriage with the respondent broke down irrevocably. PW-1 deposed that the respondent has such a nature that if she is made stay with him, she may commit suicide and through the burden on him.
16. During the cross examination of PW-1, he deposed that his marriage with the respondent is not consummated and he informed the same to his parents on the next day of marriage. He did not inform the same fact to the parents of the respondent. He do not know when his parents informed about the same to the parents of the respondent. PW-1 deposed that himself and the respondent lived together only for two months at Ramanthapur. His parents are residing at
Dornakal of Warangal District. Three months after the marriage, the respondent left his company. He did not send any legal notice to the respondent by requesting her to join the conjugal society. PW-1 deposed that he has not filed any original petition under Section 9 of H.M. Act. Even before filing this O.P., he did not send any legal notice to the respondent as his marriage with the respondent was not consummated. He never sent any mediators to the respondent requesting her to join the conjugal society. PW-1 volunteers that six months later on the information sent through the mediators, by his parents, the parents and the elders and relatives 20 in number came to his house for mediation. At that time his parents, brothers and sisters were participated in the said mediation. There is no document in writing with regard to the said mediation. PW-1 denied the suggestion that during the said mediation, the elders warned him not to harass the respondent in demand of additional dowry and to lead the marital life happily. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he demanded the respondent to bring the additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs immediately after the marriage. PW-1 denied the suggestion that an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards dowry, 20 tulas gold ornaments, Rs.50,000/- worth of household articles were presented at the time of marriage by the parents of respondent. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he is in the habit of consuming
Page 17 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 alcohol and used to harass the respondent severely. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he used to inform the respondent about his pre-marital affairs with other ladies.
PW-1 denied the suggestion that his mother used to threaten the respondent to left the company of the petitioner, as there is no necessity for him to lead the marital life as he is having affairs with other ladies. PW-1 denied the suggestion that his marriage with the respondent consummated, but he wantonly deposing false.
PW-1 denied the suggestion that he made false allegation in the O.P. in order to obtain divorce from the respondent. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the respondent filed Crime No.06/2012 before Nalgonda Women P.S. and the same was registered under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act and the said case is acquitted. PW-1 deposed that the respondent preferred an appeal against the said acquittal and the same is pending.
17. The brother of the petitioner, namely, Vempati Srinivas Rao was examined as PW-2 and filed his chief-affidavit and he reiterated the averments of the petition filed by the petitioner/PW-1.
18. During the cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he is residing at
Khammam since 17 to 18 years and he is working at Kodad from 2006 onwards.
PW-2 further deposed that the petitioner and respondent have resided at
Ramanthapur from March, 2012 to May, 2012. PW-2 deposed that he do not remember when he visited the house of petitioner and respondent at Ramanthapur during the said period. He stayed at their house for one day. Thereafter, he never met the petitioner and respondent. PW-2 deposed that after one week of the marriage he came to know that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was not consummated. He never contacted the parents of the respondent with regard to the marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent. PW-2 deposed that a panchayath was held at Dornakal in the month of April, 2012. PW-2 deposed
Page 18 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 that at that time, the respondent, parents and elders were present in the said panchayath. PW-2 deposed that the elders in the said panchayath adjusted the matter between petitioner and respondent and asked the respondent to join with the petitioner. PW-2 deposed that as on the date of panchayath the respondent was staying with her parents at Nalgonda. PW-2 deposed that he do not know when the respondent left the company of the petitioner. PW-2 deposed that he do not remember the names of the elders who were attended the panchayath. PW-2 deposed that no resolution was passed in writing in the said panchayath. The marriage of petitioner and respondent is an arranged marriage. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the parents of the respondent presented cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- worth of household articles and 20 tulas of gold ornaments at the time of marriage to the petitioner. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the petitioner has got premarital affair with other women and the same was informed to the respondent after the marriage. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the petitioner demanded Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional dowry from the respondent. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the parents of petitioner harassed the respondent in demand of additional dowry. PW-2 denied the suggestion that no panchayath was held in the month of April, 2012. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the petitioner and respondent lived together till June, 2012. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the elders of the panchayath decided in the month of December, 2012 that the entire fault lies with the petitioner and asked the petitioner to take back the respondent to lead the marital life, but the petitioner refused to take back the respondent. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the evidence affidavit filed by him and the contents in the affidavit are false. PW-2 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of PW-1.
19. One B. Shankar Rao was examined as PW-3. During the chief- examination, PW-3 deposed that he is working in Mamatha General Super
Page 19 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
Specialty Hospital, Khammam, as Casualty Medical Officer since six years. PW-3 deposed that on 05-06-2012 the respondent Prathibha Rani came to their hospital as she was brought to their hospital by her brother-in-law Srinivas. PW-3 deposed that she came to their hospital on the complaint of respondent swallowing anti hypertension drugs and also taking of diabetic drugs. PW-3 deposed that she was examined by him in casualty ward and referred to medical ward. Gastric lavage (stomach wash) was done, I.V. fluids were given along with conservative treatment to the patient. PW-3 deposed that she herself left the hospital against the medical advice on 06-06-2012 at about 3.00 p.m. PW-3 deposed that today he got along with him the case sheet of the patient by name Prathiba Rani, dated 05-06-2012 along with the certified copies of the same signed by the Superintendent of their
Hospital. The court verified and compared the originals with the attested copies and they are found to be true copies of the original. Ex.A-6 is the case sheet of the respondent.
20. During the cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that Mamatha General Super
Specialty Hospital, Khammam is a private hospital. PW-3 admitted that Ex.A-6 is corrected at the date portion and also the O.P. number in Ex.A-6 is corrected.
PW-3 deposed that after admitting the patient Prathibha Rani they informed to the police. PW-3 deposed that Prathibha Rani took treatment as in patient for a day.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that they did not treat Prathibha Rani and Ex.A-6 is created as such they created at the instance of petitioner, as such there are corrections in Ex.A-6. PW-3 denied the suggestion that they did not inform the parents of respondent regarding her admission in their hospital. PW-3 deposed that at the time of admitting the respondent in their hospital they have taken the signature of the attendant. PW-3 admitted that the columns bearing the name of the doctor, signature of the doctor, signatures of the witnesses are left blank in
Page 20 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 admission form dated 06-06-2012. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of the petitioner.
21. The respondent filed her chief affidavit and she was examined as RW-1 and she reiterated the averments of the counter in her chief affidavit.
22. During the cross examination of RW-1, she deposed that she filed DVC case and Section 498-A IPC case against the petitioner, judgment was delivered in
Domestic Violence Case by granting Rs.4,000/- to her and Section 498-A IPC case against the petitioner and his mother ended in acquittal. RW-1 admitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the orders passed in DVC case. RW-1 admitted that she stated in Section 498-A IPC case that she intended to have a child through the petitioner by the method of IVF., but not through physical contact with the petitioner. RW-1 denied the suggestion that the marriage between the petitioner and her is not consummated. RW-1 denied the suggestion that she used to resist the attempts of the petitioner to have physical contacts with her in their marriage life. RW-1 denied the suggestion that she attempted to kill the petitioner by spraying mosquito repellent in to his mouth. RW-1 denied the suggestion that whenever the petitioner wanted to have physical contact with her, she used to threaten him by burning his hands. RW-1 adds that she sustained burn injuries while she was preparing food and when she came in to contact with a burnt pan while making chapathi. RW-1 admitted that she attended the ailing mother of the petitioner while she was undergoing treatment at Khammam. RW-1 admitted that the mother of the petitioner was diabetic patient and hyper tension patient. RW-1 denied the suggestion that she attempted to commit suicide by swallowing hyper tension drugs and diabetic control drugs, when she apprehended that the petitioner would have physical contact with her. RW-1 adds that she was admitted in
Mamtha Hospital at Khammam for a night since she got drug reaction. RW-1
Page 21 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 denied the suggestion that the petitioner and his family members with the apprehension that she could commit suicide had sent her to her parents house.
23. RW-1 further deposed in her cross-examination that since June, 2012 she was staying with her parents. RW-1 admitted that she did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal life. RW-1 adds that they orally requested the petitioner to take her to his matrimonial life. RW-1 deposed that she did not got issued any legal notice to the petitioner to take her back to his matrimonial life. RW-1 deposed that the counter filed in this court was drafted upon her dictation. RW-1 denied the suggestion that she filed her counter with all false allegations. RW-1 denied the suggestion that she never attended any domestic work during her stay with the respondent and she never cooked any food and did not serve the petitioner. RW-1 denied the suggestion that her parents did not pay any dowry amount to the petitioner and the petitioner never harassed her for want of additional dowry.
RW-1 deposed that they placed the matter before the elders asking the petitioner to take her back to his house. RW-1 admitted that the petitioner made allegations against her before the panchayath elders that she is not allowing him to have physical contacts with her and that she is not cooking food for him and his mother and not taking care of his parents. RW-1 denied the suggestion that the panchayath elders pointed out that she is at fault. RW-1 denied the suggestion that the panchayath elders advised them to take divorce by mutual consent since there is no possibility of herself and the petitioner living as wife and husband.
RW-1 denied the suggestion that she is not cooperating with the petitioner to lead marital life and not attending any domestic work and not taking care of the petitioner and his parents and she is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner and hence the petitioner is entitled for divorce.
Page 22 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
24. The mother of the respondent, namely, Munasu Laxmi was examined as
RW-2 and filed her chief-affidavit and she reiterated the same averments as deposed by the respondent/RW-1 in her chief-affidavit.
25. During the cross-examination, RW-2 deposed that she blessed with one son and one daughter. At the time of marriage they have prepared a list of presentation of dowry made by them to the petitioner. RW-2 deposed that the paying amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- in cash, 20 tulas of Gold, Rs.50,000/- worth of house hold articles was also mentioned in the said list. RW-2 denied the suggestion that they have not presented above mentioned articles, cash and gold at the time of marriage and she is deposing false for the purpose of this case. RW-2 admitted that she was a deponent in the dowry harassment case filed by her daughter against the petitioner in Excise Court, Nalgonda. RW-2 deposed that before filing of dowry harassment case by the respondent, the petitioner and his parents demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. RW-2 deposed that she also deposed in the said criminal case about the additional dowry harassment made by the petitioner and the case was ended in acquittal. Since April, 2012 the respondent is staying with her. RW-2 denied the suggestion that since 2012 the respondent did not take any initiations for restitution of conjugal rights and did not file any case in that regard. RW-2 deposed that the first night of petitioner and respondent was arranged at the house of petitioner. RW-2 denied the suggestion that the respondent never cooperated with the petitioner for leading conjugal life by having physical contact and she know the said fact and she is deposing false. RW-2 denied the suggestion that the petitioner stated the above said fact to her and to her husband and also to the panchayath elders. RW-2 admitted that she do not know the name and particulars of the woman who is alleged to have extra marital relationship with the petitioner.
RW-2 denied the suggestion that the respondent wants to have Test Tube Baby through the petitioner but not through the physical contact through the petitioner.
Page 23 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
RW-2 deposed that the petitioner and respondent lead happy marital life for about two months. RW-2 deposed that the petitioner and respondent stayed together for a period of two months. RW-2 deposed that she do not know whether during the said two months period the respondent made an attempt to spray the mosquito repellent into the mouth of the petitioner and she attempted to commit suicide burning her hand and also swallowed B.P. Drugs to commit suicide. RW-2 denied the suggestion that the respondent is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner as such, this petitioner is compelled to file this divorce petition as there is no chance of living the matrimonial life with the respondent. RW-2 denied the suggestion that she is deposing false in favour of the respondent as she is the mother of the respondent.
26. The brother of the respondent, namely, M. Prasanna Kumar was examined as RW-3 and filed his chief-affidavit and he reiterated the same averments as deposed by the respondent/RW-1 in her chief-affidavit.
27. During the cross-examination, RW-3 deposed that RW-1 is his sister and she is younger than him. RW-1 studied up to M.C.A. RW-1’s marriage with the petitioner was performed after his sister completed M.C.A. RW-3 deposed that he do not have any idea whether RW-1 did any job after completion of her M.C.A.
RW-3 admitted that if one does M.C.A., there is fair chance of job opportunity.
RW-3 admitted that as RW-1 did her M.C.A., she is having chance to earn. RW-3 admitted that RW-1 is not dependent upon the sole income source of the petitioner as she did her M.C.A. and she is not incapacitated of earning. RW-3 deposed that there is no record with them to show that they paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner towards dowry. There is no record to show that they presented fourteen tulas of gold and Rs.50,000/- worth household articles to the petitioner at the time of marriage. RW-3 denied the suggestion that they did not pay any dowry at the time
Page 24 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 of marriage. RW-3 denied the suggestion that in order to help the RW-1 to claim maintenance, he is deposing false. RW-3 admitted that he did not mention in his chief examination affidavit that he came to know about the incident of beating of
RW-1 and necking her out by the petitioner in an intoxicated condition through his sister RW-1. RW-3 denied the suggestion that the petitioner did not necked out the
RW-1 and she herself swallowed the Blood Pressure tablets and sugar tablets, as such, she was admitted in Mamatha Hospital at Khammam. RW-3 admitted that he has knowledge that the RW-1 filed criminal case against the petitioner and his family members. He do not know the particulars of the case. RW-3 deposed that he do not know whether in the said case the petitioner and his family members were acquitted by the court. RW-3 admitted that RW-1 stayed with petitioner for a period of three months in total. RW-3 admitted that since from June, 2012, RW-1 is staying with them. RW-3 deposed that he do not know whether they sent any legal notice to the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. RW-3 denied the suggestion that his sister RW-1 intended to have child without cohabitation with the petitioner i.e., she wanted to have a baby through I.V.F. process. RW-3 deposed that he do not know whether the RW-1 was having dislike for sex and she is alergetic to sex through physical bonding. RW-3 denied the suggestion that the
RW-1 did not cooperate for the cohabitation with the petitioner and she used to spray insecticide on the face of the petitioner whenever the petitioner wanted to have sex with RW-1. RW-3 denied the suggestion that as there is no scope for leading marital life with the RW-1 and there is no scope for reunion as the RW-1 is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner, as such, the petitioner intends to take divorce from the RW-1. RW-3 denied the suggestion that the petitioner is entitled to divorce.
Page 25 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
28. Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows;
Divorce- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party, (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.
29. Now let us examine whether the petitioner proved the alleged cruelty, i.e., the respondent allegedly treated the petitioner with cruelty. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the marriage was performed by the parents of the respondent without her willing, consent, interest and she was forced to marry the petitioner by her parents since the petitioner is having own house and a handsome job. The respondent did not care the petitioner and his parents even she did not use to wash clothes of the petitioner. It is further allegation of the petitioner that on 22-05-2012 in the night when the petitioner tried to talk and touch the body of respondent, the respondent reacted very cruelly and rushed out of room and picked the HIT poison and sprayed into her mouth and after noticing the same, the petitioner rescued her, on that the respondent became angry and sprayed the HIT on the petitioner. The evidence of petitioner is nowhere discloses about the above said allegation and no evidence is adduced by the petitioner to prove the said allegation that the respondent sprayed HIT poison into her mouth and noticing the same, the petitioner rescued her. Moreover, no document or any piece of evidence is adduced by the petitioner to prove the said allegation.
30. It is the averment of the petitioner that his parents and himself number of times tried to settle the matter by way of full stop marriage relation since the marriage was performed without interest, consent, willing of the respondent and respondent is always and continuously trying to commit suicide in order to die, as such, the petitioner avers that there is very apprehension about the life of the petitioner in the hands of the respondent. To prove the same, the PW-1 deposed
Page 26 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 in his chief-examination affidavit that the respondent consumed the tablets ment for sugar and B.P. belonging to his mother, as such, the respondent was got admitted in Mamatha Hospital, Khammam and on 06-06-2012 and she was discharged on the next day. The petitioner avers that the said act of the respondent is an adamant to cause mental agony to him and it is an act of cruelty by the respondent towards him.
31. A perusal of the evidence of PW-3 D. Shankar Rao shows that he is working in Mamatha General Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam, as Casualty Medical
Officer since six years. PW-3 deposed that on 05-06-2012 the respondent
Prathibha Rani came to their hospital as she was brought to their hospital by her brother-in-law Srinivas. PW-3 deposed that she came to their hospital on the complaint that respondent swallowed anti hypertension drugs and also taking of diabetic drugs. PW-3 deposed about the treatment given to the respondent. PW-3 further deposed that the respondent herself left the hospital against the medical advice on 06-06-2012 at about 3.00 p.m. Ex.A-6 case sheet of the respondent in
Mamatha Hosptial was produced by the PW-3.
32. During the cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that Ex.A-6 is corrected on the date portion and also the O.P. number in Ex.A-6 is corrected. PW-3 further admitted that the columns bearing the name of the doctor, signature of the doctor, signatures of the witnesses are left blank in admission form dated 06-06-2012.
33. A perusal of Ex.A-6 shows that page No.4 consent for medical or surgical treatment form is not filled and does not contain the particulars such as name of the patient, O.P. number, I.P. number, name and signature of the doctor, witnesses and signature of the patient. Moreover, a perusal of Ex.A-6 page No.7 shows that on 07-6-2012, the patient alleged to have consumed the alleged tablets at around 9.00 p.m., in the evening. The patient was shifted to local hospital then was
Page 27 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 referred to M.G.H. A perusal of Ex.A-6 page No.7 contents shows that it is contrary to the evidence of PW-3 who deposed that on 06-06-2012 at about 3.00 p.m., the respondent herself left the hospital against the medical advice. As such, the evidence of PW-3 is not believable to prove the fact that the respondent consumed the tablets in order to commit suicide. Moreover, RW-1 i.e., respondent herein deposed during her cross-examination that she was admitted in Mamatha
Hospital, Khammam for a night since she got drug reaction. Hence, the allegation that the respondent attempted to commit suicide on 05-06-2012 is not proved and no relevance can be placed on the evidence of PW-3 and also Ex.A-6 cannot be considered to prove the alleged fact that the respondent attempted to commit suicide in the month of June, 2012.
34. It is further allegation of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is not consummated and they did not live as husband and wife and despite best attempt of the petitioner to consummate with the respondent, the respondent warned that she would raise a hue and cry and will commit suicide. To prove the same PW-1 during his cross-examination deposed that his marriage with the respondent is not consummated and he informed the same to his parents on the next day of morning. PW-1 deposed that he did not inform the said fact to the parents of the respondent and he do not know when his parents informed about the same to the parents of the respondent. PW-2 during his cross-examination deposed that after one week of the marriage he came to know that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was not consummated.
PW-2 further deposed that he never contacted the parents of the respondent with regard to the marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent.
35. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent lived together for two months at
Ramanthapur and totally they stayed together for a period of two months
Page 28 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 immediately after the marriage. The petitioner deposed that he did not send any legal notice to the respondent by requesting her to join the conjugal society. He further deposed that he has not filed any petition under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act. He further deposed that even before filing this O.P., he did not send any legal notice to the respondent as his marriage with the respondent was not consummated. He further deposed that he never sent any mediators to the respondent requesting her to join the conjugal society. RW-1 during her cross- examination denied the suggestion that the marriage between the petitioner and her is not consummated. It is an admitted fact that both the parties are living separately since June, 2012 and the petitioner did not make any efforts requesting the respondent to join the conjugal society and he even did not send any legal notice to the respondent before filing this petition. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not believable regarding the alleged fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not consummated since the respondent denied the suggestion that the marriage between her and the petitioner was not consummated. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 shows that one day after the marriage he informed to his parents that the marriage was not consummated.
Whereas PW-2 deposed that one week after the marriage he came to know that the marriage was not consummated. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner and the respondent stayed together till June, 2012 and the respondent states that the marriage between her and the petitioner was consummated. As such, no relevance can be placed on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the non- consummation of the marriage.
36. It is further allegation of the petitioner that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner from 06-06-2012 onwards without any reasonable excuse and the petitioner has made several efforts for reunion but the respondent is not in a mood and interest to live with the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that
Page 29 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 the petitioner himself avers that his parents and himself number of times tried to settle the matter by way of full stop the marriage relation since the marriage was performed without interest, consent, willing of the respondent. In order to prove the said allegation the petitioner failed to examine any witnesses and produce any evidence to show that the marriage was performed without the consent of the respondent. The petitioner further failed to prove that he made several efforts for reunion.
37. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his written arguments submitted at para 6 in page No.2 that the respondent claims that she is interested in joining the company of the petitioner, but no efforts were made by her to join the company of the petitioner.
As stated in the above paras the petitioner himself admitted that he did not issue legal notice calling upon the respondent to join his company he did not file any petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in respect of conjugal rights. Thus, the acts of the petitioner in filing this petition lacks bonafides.
38. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the citation reported in “Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal, AIR 1996 SC 3192” in support of his arguments. A perusal of the said case law shows that the said case law is not applicable to the present case since therein the respondent through his counsel categorically submitted that there was no possibility of parties remaining together as husband and wife and that position was not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Whereas in the instant case, the respondent is very much interested in joining the conjugal society of the petitioner. Hence, the case law relied is not applicable to the instant case.
39. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the citation reported in “Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, (2005) 7 SCC 352” in
Page 30 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015 support of his arguments. The said case law is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case since the respondent therein not disputed the fact that attempts have been made by the appellant therein and his family to bring her back to the matrimonial home for leading a conjugal life with the appellant.
Further, therein the respondent was willing to live with the appellant on the condition that they lived separately from his family. Whereas in the instant case the respondent is ready to join the conjugal society of the petitioner and she dispute the attempts made by the petitioner and his family members to allow her into the matrimonial home. Hence, the case law relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is not applicable. Further, in the case law cited, the complaint
before the Mahila Commission was lodged after the filing of the application by the
appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Whereas in the instant case, the alleged criminal case filed by the respondent against the petitioner is before the filing of the instant petition. As such, the case law relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is not applicable to the instant case.
40. A perusal of the entire evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged acts of cruelty made by the respondent against the petitioner.
41. For the above stated reasons the petitioner failed to prove the ingredients under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
42. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr-1), transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 03rd day of August, 2021. MDigitally signed by M
NAGARAJU
NAGARAJUDate: 2021.08.03 17:16:51 +0530
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
NALGONDA.
Page 31 of 32
O.P.No. 54 of 2015
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
PW-1: Vempati Rama Krishna (Petitioner)
PW-2: Vempati Srinivas Rao (Brother of PW-1)
PW-3: Dr. B. Shankar Rao
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
RW-1: Vempati Prathiba Rani (Respondent)
RW-2: Munasu Laxmi (Mother of RW-1)
RW-3: M. Prasanna Kumar (Brother of RW-1)
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
Ex.A-1 is the wedding card.
Exs.A-2 to A-4 are the wedding photos (03 in number).
Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2013 of W.P.S., Nalgonda.
Ex.A-6 is the case sheet of the respondent.
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
- Nil- MDigitally signed by
M NAGARAJU
NAGARAJUDate: 2021.08.03 17:17:12 +0530
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
NALGONDA.
Page 32 of 32