B.V.RAMAKRISHNA RAJU Vs. B.BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place in the year 1965. They were blessed with one son and two daughters. The marriage of the first daughter was performed on 21.05.1998. Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed O.P.No.370 of 1999 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). He pleaded that after the marriage of their elder daughter, the respondent came under the influence of her brother and henchmen, and with that, she revolted against him without any cause. He pleaded that the behaviour of the respondent turned out to be quarrelsome, and unable to bear the harassment caused to him, he gave a portion of two rooms in his house to the respondent, as a licensee from June, 1998 onwards. He alleged that he is not in talking terms with his wife and children, ever since June, 1998, and he was subjected to harassment and cruelty, particularly, on account of a complaint lodged by the respondent with the police against him in November, 1998, alleging that he is harassing her for dowry. He, ultimately, pleaded that there is no scope for change of attitude in the mind of the respondent and, accordingly, prayed for divorce.

(2.) THE respondent filed a counter, opposing the O.P. She stated that it is the appellant, who harassed her, on one pretext or the other, including the one of demand of additional dowry and landed property. She stated that the appellant has driven her away from the house. In addition to opposing the O.P., the respondent filed O.S.No.176 of 1999, against the appellant, for maintenance for herself and children.

(3.) THIS appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed against the decree in O.P.No.370 of 1999. Sri E. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the O.P. He contends that the very fact that the parties are living separately from the past 1 1/2 decades, is sufficient to grant a decree for divorce. The learned counsel submits that though there were no serious disputes between the parties, the humiliation and harassment caused by the respondent to the appellant would constitute cruelty.