P M SESHU Vs. P N SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal was brought in challenge against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudivada, in O.P.No.99 of 1989 on his file; whereby the learned Subordinate Judge found that the petitioner, respondent herein, has established that the respondent, appellant herein, behaved cruelly towards him and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled, for divorce.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief, are as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place on 26th February, 1982 at Eluru according to Hindu rites and customs. Later, the marriage was consummated. Thereafter, the respondent joined fhe petitioner and lived for about three months at Gudivada. In or about 1983, the petitioner shifted his family to Mangalagiri where he was working as Lecturer. Out of their wedlock, in the year 1982, a male child was born. The respondent developed aversion towards the male child and did not choose to pay proper care and attention. Ultimately, the boy died due to lack of proper care. The respondent openly expressed her disliking towards the petitioner. The respondent treated the petitioner with crutly. In the year 1983, she left to her parents house. When requested by the petitioner, the respondent bluntly refused to join the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent and her mother came to Mangalagiri and stayed nearly for one month. During that period also, the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelly. In the month of February, 1984, the respondent and her mother left the petitioner's house without informing him. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondent gave birth to a female child. When the petitioner's father went to see the child, he was insulted by the relatives of the respondent. He came back to Mangalagiri and informed the same to the petitioner. Thus the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and developed aversion towards him.

(3.) The respondent- wife filed a counter resisting the averments made in the petition. She admits the marriage and their relationship as man and wife. She also admits that she gave birth to a male child on 27-12-1982. It is admitted by her that subsequently disputes arose between both of them due to the interference by the parents of the petitioner. According to her, the parents of the petitioner have no liking towards her and, therefore, they have been instigating their son, petitioner, to illtreat her. The petitioner insisted on abortion for which the respondent did not agree. He used to send her to Eluru on some pretext or the other on the ground that she was unwell and required medical attention. She was not taken (back) after the death of the male child. Therefore, she went to Mangalagiri along with her mother. The respondent again became pregnant. The petitioner insisted on abortion as he does not like children at early age. Thereafter, disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was brought to Gudivada and kept her in the house of his grand-mother. Ten days thereafter she was driven out of the house after taking all the jewellery. She was compelled to file M.C.No.10/86 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Eluru. She also filed O.S.148/86 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudivada, for partition of joint family properties. She admits that she is ready and willing to join her husband, respondent (petitioner). She asserts that the parents of the petitioner are responsible for the failure of the marriage and now she is employed in a local College at Eluru.