BH RAMA Vs. BH NAGA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the wife of the respondent. They were married on 8-5-1985. Both of them belong to Bhimavaram. The appellant went to her parents house in 1986 for confinement. She delivered a male child on 14-8-1986 and he was named Raju. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.25 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by alleging that the appellant behaved in indifferent manner and she never treated him as her husband and she developed antipathy towards him and on the evil advice of her mother, she refused to join him. When the said O.P. had come up for hearing, the appellant herein reiterated that she was willing to go and join the respondent herein as she averred in the counter and she denied the various allegations in O.P.No.25 of 1987. The said O.P. was allowed on 24-8-1987 as the appellant herself admitted to go and join the respondent herein. The appellant herein went to the house of the respondent herein on 21-8-87 and they lived together till 14-9-1987. The respondent herein alleges that the appellant herein picked up quarrel with him saying that she joined him only to get O.P.No.25 of 1987 dismissed and she again deserted him. He further alleged that the matter was reported to the elders of the caste and he issued lawyer's notice dt.19-9-1987 as per Ex.A-1 and though the appellant received it, she had not even sent a reply. On the other hand, the appellant herein filed M.C.No.31/87 on the file of the II Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and their son. The II Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram granted maintenance only to the son and her claim for maintenance was negatived and the same was affirmed by the Sessions Court in revision. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.3 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram under Section 13 (1) (ia), (ib) and Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.

(2.) The appellant herein resisted the claim of the respondent herein for divorce by alleging that the respondent ill-treated her and expelled her from the house and he is addicted to vices ie., gambling, drinking and debauchery and he was ill-treating her as she had not applied for the job on the death of her father and allowed her younger brother to have that job.

(3.) The lower court granted divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under: