ADIGARLA VENKATA LAKSHMI Vs. ADIGARLA VENKATA SATYA SREENIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2000 passed in O. P. No. 212 of 1992 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner - husband under S.13(1)(ia)(ib) and S.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was allowed. The wife preferred the present C.M.A.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in O.P. No.212 of 1992.

(3.) ON 15.06.1992, the respondent and her father, apprehending proceedings for divorce by the petitioner, influenced the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Police Station, and got sent two police constables to bring the petitioner and his father. The Sub-Inspector of Police threatened the petitioner and his father that if the petitioner would not set up separate residence and live with the respondent, they would be prosecuted and convicted and the petitioner would be deprived of his job. The police also threatened that the parents of the petitioner shall not visit the respondent. The police also directed that the respondent should be allowed to live in the petitioner's house at Hamsavaram where he is working as Teacher. Apprehending a false case and harassment by the respondent with the connivance of the police, the petitioner agreed to live as directed by the respondent - wife and the police, and on 22.08.1992, the respondent entered the petitioner's house at Hamsavaram. Later, the petitioner was transferred to S. Annavaram where his parents were living. Because of the threat posed by the police and the respondent, the petitioner took a separate house on rent at Kankipati Vari Garuvu, Tuni and stayed there. Though they were residing under the same roof, there were no marital relations between them. The respondent, with the assistance of the police, always threatened that she could get the petitioner and his people convicted. Sometimes, she threatened that she would commit suicide so that the petitioner and his people would be convicted. Thus, the respondent has not only deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of three years but also subjected him to cruelty and torture. As the situation was unbearable, the petitioner came to Kakinada on 20.09.1992 for initiating proceedings for a decree for dissolution of marriage. Sensing the purpose for which the petitioner left for Kakinda, the respondent immediately reported to the police and got a notice dated 22.09.1992 served on the petitioner with a direction to appear before the police immediately in spite of the fact that examinations were going on in the school. When the petitioner along with Lagudu Chinnayya Naidu went to the police station, he was abused in vulgar language and was threatened of launching of prosecution and allowed to leave the police station in the mid - night. Thus, during the period from 22.08.1992 to 23.09.1992, she had no intention to return to the matrimonial home, but managed to stay in the house of the petitioner with the assistance and pressure from the police. Hence, the respondent is guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner, as such, he filed the petition for grant of decree for dissolution of marriage or alternatively for judicial separation.