MUTYALA TATA RAO Vs. MUTYALA SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the husband-petitioner against the dismissal of ; the O.P. filed for divorce on two grounds, namely, desertion and cruelty. The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 18th January, 1988 in O.P.No. 21 of 1984 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The parties were married in the year 1963. They have two children a girl and a boy. They lived together happily till 1978-79. Then bickerings arose between the spouses regarding some properties. It is claimed by the husband- petitioner/appellant that in June, 1979, as a result of his questioning the parents of the wife regarding the income from the lands given as Pasupukunkuma, the parents of the respondent took her away from the martial home and since then, in spite of his efforts, she did not come back and live with the husband. In 1979, a suit was filed by the wife for recovery of possession of her property and for rendition of accounts for the profits realised for 16 years. It is claimed that when the suit was filed, the husband in retaliation filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights O.P.No.190. That O.P. was ultimately dismissed in view of the judgment of this High Court stating that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is ultra vires the Constitution. Subsequently some other disputes arose between the parties and it is now an admitted fact that from 1979 June, the parties are living apart separately though they reside in houses which are opposite to each other. At the time of the marriage, a site with a tiled house was gifted to the spouses by the father of the wife. That house is situated opposite to the house of the parents of the wife. On the ground of desertion which extends from 1979 June to the date of filing of the O.P. in 1984, the husband claims a decree of divorce.

(2.) The respondent-wife resisted the petition on the ground that from the beginning the husband was ill-treating her and that the husband was addicted to vices and he failed to render accounts for Acs.5-95 cents of her property which was entrusted to the husband in the year 1964. Though a separate house was given to the petitioner under settlement deed dated 23-8-1976, the husband never looked after the wife properly. He used to beat her often; he was addicted to gambling and he was neglecting the wife and the children in the sense that he was not giving her any money for purchasing provisions and to run the household. He was a squanderer spending away the money realised from his own lands as well as the lands belonging to the respondent. On one occasion, the petitioner took gold Palakasarulu of 30 Tolas weight from the parents of the wife on the pretext that it was needed for his sister- in-law to wear at the time of marriage. Subsequently it was not returned and when the parents of the respondent demanded for return of the same, it came to light that it was pledged in the bank through his brother Eswar Rao. When mediators questioned him, he agreed to pay the amount if it is redeemed by the father of the respondent. The father of the respondent had to pay Rs. 10,000/- and redeem the jewel. When money was demanded, the petitioner and his brother raided the house of the respondent and caused damage and raised a huge galata . Immediately after this, the petitioner started exerting pressure on the respondent to leave the house and drove her along with her children to the parents' house. He expressed his final intention to desert her. Since then, the wife is obliged to live with her parents. Only when she gave the notice and filed a suit for recovery of possession of her Stree Dhana property, as a counter-blast, the husband gave a reply and then filed O.P.No.190 of 1980 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. As the petitioner's offer to take her and to live with her is not bona fide and it was only intended to bring pressure on the respondent to force her to withdraw the suit, she refused to go and live with him. The suit O.S.No.250 of 1980 was decreed in part but the relief for rendition of accounts was not granted. Now an appeal is pending in the High Court. The respondent claims that it is the petitioner who abandoned and deserted the respondent and the respondent is not guilty of desertion. Since four years the petitioner is living with one Sarojinamma and they are living as man and wife though ostensibly she is described as a cook. They are living in the house gifted by her parents to the petitioner. There is justifiable reason for the wife not joining her husband. The petitioner is guilty of desertion and cruelty and there is no desertion on the part of the respondent. She has a reasonable cause and justification for living apart.

(3.) The trial court, after a very elaborate trial, came to the conclusion that the respondent has not deserted the petitioner and it is amply proved that due to the beating and also keeping a lady as a cook by the petitioner, the respondent who was driven out, is living separately and she is justified in doing so and in view of this, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of dissolution of marriage.