C MEENA Vs. C SURESH KUMAR
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 29,1992

C.MEENA Appellant
VERSUS
C.SURESH KUMAR Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

CH SAMBASIVA RAO VS. CH VIJAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-1993-9-5] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.Ramakrishnam Raju, J. - (1.)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife who is the respondent in the lower Court, questioning the decree passed for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in O.P.No.209 of 1986, filed by the husband-respondent herein, seeking divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and me respondent.
(2.)The case of the respondent as stated in the Original Petition, filed before the lower Court is as follows: He married the appellant in the year 1977 at the house of the appellant's parents at Shah Inayat Gunj, Hyderabad according to Vedic rites and the customs of the community to which the parties belong. A daughter and a son were born in lawful wedlock. They are named, Vandana and Raghavender respectively. The appellant is the daughter of the maternal uncle of the respondent. His maternal uncle is doing Transport business and he has got lorries. He is financially sound, whereas he is working as a lorry driver and financially weak. Therefore, the appellant was always complaining that she has no amenities like T.V., Refrigerator ather husband's house. She was also visiting Cinema Houses frequently for seeing pictures. He also worked as A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Driver for sometime and his services were terminated as he had participated in strike. Thereafter, he worked with his father-in-law for sometime on the promise that he would be made a share-holder. But, when he demanded his share, he was assured that he would be given a cash of Rs.25,000/- which was also not given. Eventhough he tried his best as a lorry driver to keep his wife happy with the meagre income he was getting, the appellant was not happy and she quarrelled with him and as a result of which, on 27-4-1986 her father came, abused him and took her away and in spite of his best efforts to get her back, he could not succeed. When all his efforts failed, he sent a lawyer's notice on 10-5-1986 and filed the Petition seeking dissolution of marriage thereafter.
(3.)The appellant filed her counter in the lower Court denying all the above,, allegations,. The marriage and birth of two children were admitted by her. Her case is that hef father gave her jewellery worth Rs.26,000/- and other articles worth Rs. 9,000/-. In addition to the above, he spent Rs. 15,000/- to wards marriage expenses on behalf of both sides. After the marriage, they lived happily till 1980, by which time two children were born. Afterwards, she noticed change in the attitude and behaviour of her husband and he used to pick up quarrels over triffling matters, thereby abusing and beating her mercilessly for no fault of hers. The reason behind this attitude and ill-treatment was that he had fallen in love with a girl by name Santha, working as a teacher in a private school - Lai Bahadur Shastri Schocl at Nimboliadda, Hyderabad and on account of this love-affair, her husband started neglecting her from 1980 onwards. The intimacy of her husb and with Santha developed to the extent that the said girl frequented hef visits to their house in her presence and she had been spending most of the day time with her husband. She resented her visits and requested her husband to prevent her. But, he never liked it. He beat her and drove her out of the house. Then, she came to her parents house from there, she wrote personally a letter to the said girl on 4-8-1981 dissuading her from developing intimacy with her husband. She also wrote a letter to the father of the girl, Sri K.K. Pafameswaran with the same request. The said Santha also wrote a letter dated 13-1-1983 and the house of her husband has become a hell for her and she had tolerated this with patience but there was no change in the attitude of her husband and other family members. She denied having received any notice issued by her husband. She finally stated that the petition is filed by " her husband to cover up his own wrongs and to avoid her. Therefore, it has to be dismissed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.