S HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. S RAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the husband who is in appeal. The respondent is his wife. The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 26-8-88 at Hyderabad. The marriage was also consummated. During October 1988, while the couple were in a honeymoon, it is alleged that the respondent told the appellant that she was forced into marriage by her parents, while she was more interested in her career rather than a married life, as she had studied M. Sc. in electronics. It is also alleged by the appellant that on 15-10-88, on a petty quarrel, the respondent walked out of his house and it was after great persuasion she was brought back to his house. The very next day of the said incident, the respondent was taken by her parents to their house and despite request by the appellant and members of his family, she did not return for about two-and-a-half months to the house of the appellant. During that period, there was a reconciliation, as a result of which the respondent was sent to the house of the appellant on the condition that she should be sent to the house of her parents on every Thursday and taken back on Saturday to facilitate her to perform Santoshimata Puja on every Friday. According to the appellant, this arrangement also did not suit the respondent and all the time she complained of deprivation and expressed her desire to return to her parents' house permanently. On 8-3-89, it is alleged that the respondent in privacy took out her Mangalsutra and threw it at the appellant, and on the very next day, she went to her parents' place and thereafter she never returned to the appellant's house, despite several requests.

(2.) Thereafter, there were several meetings for reconciliation which failed. It is also alleged that the respondent got a complaint lodged through her uncle who was then posted as Superintendent of Police, with the Women's Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad against him and his father and other members of his family as a result of which they had to seek anticipatory bail from the Court. Subsequently, again, efforts were made for reconciliation but they did not fructify and under such circumstances, the appellant filed a petition before the Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of marriage by granting decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. The grounds of cruelty were attributed to three acts of the respondent. Firstly, while in privacy, the respondent took out her Mangalsutra and threw it at the appellant; secondly, the respondent kept, maintained and preserved the copies of the letters sent by her to the appellant which shattered the mutual confidence between the couple; and thirdly, that the respondent lodged a complaint through her uncle against the appellant and the other members of his family under Section 498-A, IPC with the Women's Protection Cell, Hyderabad, for which they had to obtain anticipatory bail from the Court. According to the appellant, all these three acts of the respondent constituted mental cruelty upon him and thus was entitled to a decree of divorce. The wife filed counter-affidavit to the petition filed by her husband wherein she admitted that while in privacy she took out Mangalsutra and that she maintained and preserved the copies of letters sent by her to her husband. However, she denied having lodged any complaint with the Women's Protection Cell, Hyderabad or threw Mangalsutra at the face of her husband. The appellant examined himself as well as his witnesses in support of his allegation and filed the letters sent by the respondent to him which were exhibited as Exts. A-1 and A-10. The Fourth Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, found that the acts of the respondent in taking out Mangalsutra and throwing it at the husband, keeping and maintaining the copies of letters sent to her husband and lodging of complaint with the Women Protection Cell constituted mental cruelty upon the husband and as such the appellant was entitled to decree of divorce. However, the trial Court found that the wife did not desert the appellant.

(3.) Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court, on appreciation of evidence found, that the incidents alleged by the appellant were blown out of proportion and in fact those incidents did not constitute mental cruelty. Consequently, the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the appeal was allowed. It is against this judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.