K VENKATESH Vs. K PRAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 21-06-2001 at Mahabubnagar. They are also blessed with two children. Alleging that the respondent left the matrimonial house in March 2010, the appellant filed O.P. No. 17 of 2010 in the Family Court, Mahabubnagar, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short, "the Act"). He pleaded that the respondent is very much inclined to live with him, but on account of the pressure exerted by her brothers, she left his home and staying in the house of her brothers only with an objective of serving her mentally retarded sister. He pleaded that on 21-03-2010, when himself and the respondent were in their house along with their children, the brothers of the respondent along with their younger sister came to their house, picked up a quarrel and took her away. His efforts to convince them are said to have not materialized. He further stated that on 25-04-2010, he took some elders of the family and ex-sarpanch of their native place to the house of the brothers of the respondent and pleaded them not to disturb his family by separating them and that the brothers of the respondent were not at all inclined to listen to them. They are also said to have threatened him. Ultimately, he pleaded for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) The respondent opposed the O.P. by filing a counter. She did not dispute the factum of her marriage with the appellant and the fact that they had two children. She, however, stated that the appellant was harassing her on various occasions. According to her, on 23-10-2010, appellant beat her and has driven her away from the home. She is said to have been treated in a Government Hospital in Mahabubnagar for the injuries. As an additional plea, she stated that the appellant is working in a Zilla Parishath High School in a village and when she insisted that the children must be admitted in a reputed private School at Mahabubnagar, appellant did not accede to that request. She pleaded that the appellant had no intention to live with her and that the O.P. was filed only as a prelude to obtain decree of divorce.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the O.P. through its order dated 02-06-2011. Hence this appeal.