M VIJAYA Vs. M BHAGYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A. is directed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam dated 7-1-1998 made in O.P.No. 127 of 1998 allowing the O.P. and dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce.

(2.) The appellant is the wife. The respondent-husband filed the above O.P. under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the O.P. are as follows:- The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24-5-1989 and the marriage was consummated. Immediately after the marriage, the appellant joined the respondent and lived with him in his house happily. The respondent has been working as causal welder in Hindustan Shipyard Limited at Visakhapamam. it is stated in the petition that they lived together happily for about two months after the marriage and thereafter the appellant did not like to live with him and used to pick up silly quarrels and used to ill treat and insult him before others for no fault of his. Thereafter, it is stated, the appellant went to her parent's house for Ashadam and after Ashadam, the respondent brought the appellant to his house and both of them lived together for one month. It is stated that even during the said short period, the appellant abused him in foul and filthy language and never treated him with love and affection and harassed him on petty issues. The appellant was demanding to convert himself to Christianity. It is also stated that she also demanded for separate residence leaving behind his dependants. The respondent refused for the same, as he is the only breadwinner for his family and bore all the harassment meted out to him. It is also stated that all of a sudden, without informing him, the appellant left the matrimonial house to her parents' house and when the respondent approached the appellant and asked her to accompany him, the appellant as well as her parents refused, it is also stated that several mediations through elders to bring her into his fold proved futile and she refused to join him. It is also stated that on one occasion when the husband of his sister requested the appellant to come to King George Hospital to see the respondent who was on bed in the state of unconsciousness due to the accident by current shock in the year 1992, the appellant refused, it is stated that thus the appellant neglected and deserted him. It is also stated that -the appellant filed a maintenance case in 1991 which was ordered. As there is no possibility of the parties coming together, he issued a legal notice on 28-1-1996 to the appellant to consent for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent, but the appellant did not give any reply therefor. Hence the O.P.