LAWS(APH)-2013-4-22

M.SUKENDER Vs. S.M.SHIRISHA

Decided On April 12, 2013
M.Sukender Appellant
V/S
S.M.Shirisha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 13-08- 2006. Within a short time thereafter, differences have arisen between them. The respondent filed O.P.No.5 of 2009 before the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking divorce against the appellant under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). She pleaded that prior to the marriage itself, the appellant and his family members demanded dowry of Rs.10 lakhs; valuable articles, and marriage expenditure, and that demands have been complied with. She further pleaded that after the marriage, the appellant and his parents demanded additional dowry of Rs.11 lakhs, for purchase of a flat at Seethaphalmandi. She has also stated that a two wheeler was purchased by the appellant, in her name, and the installments were being paid from her hank account. She alleged that on 22-09-2006, when she was travelling on a two wheeler, somebody dashed against the vehicle, and she received grievous injuries. She suspected the hand of the appellant and her family members, to do away with her. Another allegation was that on 04-04-2007 a birthday party was celebrated in the house of the appellant, and on that day, she narrowly escaped, when the appellant and his father have thrown empty beer bottles on her.

(2.) An iron rod is also said to have been thrown from the first floor on 19-05-2007 by the appellant and his parents. It was further stated that the appellant and his family members have necked her out, stating that she should come back with additional dowry. Narrating these and other instances, she prayed for a decree of divorce.

(3.) The appellant opposed the O.P., by denying the allegations made against him, and his family members. He has also stated that it is the respondent, that has been creating trouble to the family, and has filed frivolous complaints. The trial Court decreed the O.P., through its order dated 22-06-2011. The appellant challenges the same.