GADAMSETTI RAJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. GADAMSETTI VENKATA SUBBA RAO
LAWS(APH)-1955-1-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 21,1955

GADAMSETTI RAJAYA LAKSHMI Appellant
VERSUS
GADAMSETTI VENKATA SUBBA RAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

FROWD V. FROWD [REFERRED TO]
LENGA LALUNG V. PENGURI LALUNGNI [REFERRED TO]
JACKSON V. JACKSON [REFERRED TO]
HEROD V. HEROD [REFERRED TO]
WALTER V. WALTER [REFERRED TO]
RAJALAKSHMI V. JAMBULINGAM [REFERRED TO]
TEKAIT MON MOHINI JEMADAI VS. BASANTA KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal raises an interesting question of law. The application out of which the appeal arises was filed by the husband (the respondent herein) under Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act of 1949 praying for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that his wife (the appellant herein) had, Without just cause, deserted him for a continuous period of more than three years immediately preceding the presentation of his application. The appellant herein contended that she was ill-treated and driven out of her husband's house, that she was always ready and willing to return to him and that consequently the applica tion should be dismissed. In a careful and elaborate judgment, the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla held that the appellant did not establish any ill-treatment or cruelty and that she deserted the respondent herein without any justifiable cause for a continuous pei iod of more than three years prior to the application and the respondent herein was entitled to dissolution of marriage. The wife has therefore preferred the appeal as against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla in O.P. No. 14 of 1951.
(2.)Two questions arise for consideration in the appeal : (1) whether the appellant was ill-treated and driven out of the husband's house as alleged by her or as to whether she left the house in the circumstances spoken to by the respondent's witnesses, namely, for attending a festival in her father's house ; and (2) whether the refusal by the appellant to return to her husband's house amounts to desertion within the meaning of Madras Act VI of 1949.
(3.)The decision on the first question depends mainly upon the appreciation of the oral evidence adduced in the case. The Subordinate Judge has carefully examined the oral evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant's case as to ill-feelings and cruel treatment is absolutely false. I have also carefully examined the evidence and I agree with the rinding of the trial Court. According to the appellant, ill-feelings arose when she refused to co-habit with one Venkateswarlu, at the instance of her husband, the respondent herein. She further deposed that one morning before dawn, she discovered her husband's aunt, Kotamma, sleeping with one Babusetty and that this incident also embittered the feelings in the family. A reading of her deposition clearly shows that it is not worthy of any credence. The part attributed to her husband is not only unnatural but also unbelievable.
;


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