GRANDHAM SRIDHAR Vs. GRANDHAM JAYA VANI
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Grandham Jaya Vani
Referred Judgements :-
K. SRINIVAS RAO V. D.A DEEPA.
VIDHYA VISWANATHAN V. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN.
Click here to view full judgement.
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD,J. -
(1.)This civil miscellaneous appeal is arising out of the order dated 3.12.2004, passed in OP No.38 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, filed under Section 13(l)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner/appellant with the respondent.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are:
The marriage of the appellant-Grandham Sridhar was performed with the respondent-Grandham Jaya Vani on 10.4.1996, at Eluru as per Hindu Rites and Caste custom prevailed in their community. The appellant/ husband has filed OP No.38 of 2000 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, on consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 on behalf of the appellant, and RWs.l to 3 on behalf of respondent, and the documents Ex.Al and Ex.A2, has dismissed the petition filed for dissolution of marriage by the appellant/ husband. The counter claim made by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the following grounds.
(i) The respondent has filed a false criminal case in CC No.635 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act.
(ii) The filing of a false criminal case by the respondent against the appellant amounts to cruelty and on that ground the appellant is entitled for grant of divorce;
(iii) The respondent has never issued any notice to the appellant seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
(iv) The counter-claim of the respondent on conjugal rights was filed three years after filing of OP No.38 of 2000 seeking for dissolution of marriage and therefore the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed as a counterblast for divorce OP No.38 of 2000 filed by the respondent.
(v) The respondent has voluntarily deserted the appellant without any reason and therefore on the ground of desertion also the appellant is entitled for dissolution of marriage.
(vi) The appellant and his relatives have tried their best for re-union of the couple but the same has failed because of indifferent attitude of the respondent. There is no possibility of re-union in this case in view of the longer separation between the couple and therefore the judgment and decree of the Trial Court may be set aside.
(3.)Heard the arguments or Ms. C. Amulya Spencer, learned Counsel representing Sri G. Ronald Raju, learned Counsel for the appellant and the arguments of the Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.