BODAPATI UMAMAHESWARI Vs. BODAPATI VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are between the same parties and arise out of a common order passed by the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in O.P. Nos. 36 and 82 of 1996. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place at Kakinada, way back on 18.06.1987. The respondent filed O.P. No. 36 of 1996 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), for divorce, against the appellant, alleging grounds of cruelty and desertion. He pleaded that after their marriage was performed, the appellant went to her parents' house and lived there for one month and though she came back, on repeated requests, she stayed only for 20 days and went again. The appellant is said to have informed the respondent that she is not interested to live with him and that she would join him, if he puts up a separate residence. The respondent alleged that though he has set up a separate residence, the appellant did not join him, and on the other hand, filed C.C. No. 44 of 1993 under Section 498-A of I.P.C. in the Court of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, with false allegations, including the one, touching his character. He further stated that he filed O.P. No. 50 of 1990 for judicial separation and when the appellant came forward to live with him, he withdrew the O.P. It was alleged that C.C. No. 44 of 1993 ended in acquittal and the appellant had carried the matter in revision to the High Court and there also it was dismissed. According to the respondent, these and other related facts constitute the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) The appellant filed a detailed counter, opposing the O.P. She pleaded that the marriage was performed just before the month of 'Ashada' and as per the customs, she had to live in the house of her parents for that entire month and even that was treated as an act of desertion. She stated that the respondent harassed her by demanding additional dowry from her father, who retired as a Superintendent in Central Excise. It was also pleaded that the O.P. filed by the respondent for judicial separation was withdrawn, once she has informed the Court that she was always willing to live with the respondent. She pleaded that C.C. No. 44 of 1993 ended in acquittal by giving benefit of doubt and even this Court in the revision, took the view that it is more a case of feeling of discomfort by her in the company of the respondent and his mother, and no finding was given in the proceedings that the complaint was baseless. She alleged that on being insisted, she brought Rs. 5,000/-, each, on three occasions from her parents house, and that the respondent harassed for transfer of her fixed deposits in his name. Demand is also said to have been made for purchase of a Yamaha Motor Cycle and payment of some amount for discharge of debts.

(3.) Almost, at the same time, the appellant filed O.P. No. 82 of 1996 under Section 9 of the Act, against the respondent, for restitution of conjugal rights. For all practical purposes, the pleadings in O.P. No. 36 of 1996 were repeated by the respective parties.