A HEMAMALINI Vs. A PANKAJANABHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a wife's appeal directed against the order dated 22-4-1991 in O.P.No.35 of 1985 on the file of the court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi allowing the petition of her husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, shortly referred to as the 'Act' and dissolving the marriage between them. In this appeal the appellant is the wife, the first respondent is the husband and the 2nd respondent is the alleged paramour of the appellant.

(2.) The averments in the petition filed by the first respondent disclose that the first respondent married the appellant in accordance with the usage and custom of the Setti Baliza community of Hindus at Railway Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupathi on 5-10-1984. It is alleged that soon after the marriage the appellant disclosed to the first respondent that she had illicit intimacy with the second respondent even before the marriage when the second respondent was working at Renigunta and she consented to marry the first respondent only on account of compulsion and coercion of her parents. It is alleged that the appellant did not permit the first respondent to consummate the marriage stating that she had pre-marital inrtercourse with the second respondent. However, or persuation of her parents the appellan agreed to live with the first respondent anc therefore the first respondent set up separate living with the appellant in one of tre portions of the house belonging to the parents of the appellant in the first week o December 1984. Even then, the appellan did not permit the first respondent to consummate the marriage. On 29-12-1980 the appellant was taken to her parental house by her parents on the ground that she wa unwell and assuring the first respondent tha she would stay with the parents only unte Sankranti, but the appellant did not join the first respondent even after Sankranti. The first respondent made several attempts in vain to secure the company of the appellant. The parents of the appellant took one or the other pretext and did not send the appellant to the first respondent. On 22-4-1985 the parents of the appellant met the first respondent and informed the latter that the appellant was missing from the house from the previous night and they also disclosed to the first respondent their knowledge of the Illicit intimacy between the appellant and the second respondent. The parents of the appellant also told the respondent that the second respondent eloped the appellant. After hearing this from the parents of the appellant, the first respondent along with his brother-in-law and a friend searched for the appellant at several places and after securing the address of the second respondent, the first respondent, his brother-in-law and his friend went to Vengalathuri the village of the second respondent on the afternoon of 29-4-1985 and met the second respondent. When the second respondent was confronted in the presence of his mother, the second respondent admitted the pre-marital intimacy and sexual intercourse with the appellant and elopement of the appellant. The appellant was not in the house of the second respondent. Therefore the first respondent and others gathered the elders of Vengalathur village including one R. Govindaswamy Reddy (P.W. 2) who is said to be Sarpanch of the village to learn about the whereabouts of the appellant. In the presence of the elders of the village the second respondent disclosed that he had secreted the appellant in the house of his elder sister at nearby village called Nallathur. On the advice of the elders the second respondent brought the appellant to Vengalathur on the morning of 30th April, 1985 and in Vengalthur in the presence of elders both the appellant and respondent No.2 admitted pre-marital intimacy between them as well as of having had sexual intercourse several times both before and after the marriage of the first respondent with the appellant. The appellant refused to join and cohabit with the first respondent. On persuasion of the elders the first respondent and others escorted the appellant from Vengalathur to her parents house in Renigunta on the morning of 30-4-1985. The appellant had agreed for divorce by mutual consent but the parents of the appellant did not agree for the divorce unless the petitioner paid Rs. 20,000/- towards the marriage expenses incurred by them for performing the marriage. The first respondent issued a lawyer's notice dt. 24-5-1985 to the appellant, second respondent and the parents of the appellant calling upon the appellant to join him in making a joint application for divorce by mutual consent. The appellant and her parents on the one hand and the second respondent on the other, by separate replies set up false and untenable pleas. With these averments the first respondent sought the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery.

(3.) Counter was filed by the appellant-wife. The appellant, while denying all the material allegations contained in the petition filed by the first respondent except the fact of marriage, alleged that the appellant is no other than the daughter of elder sister of the first respondent and she married the first respondent with fond hope that she would lead a happy married life. It is stated that four days after the marriage the first respondent began to illtreat her for no fault of her. She also came to know that the first respondent was addicted to vices. She claimed that she was taken to parental house by her father on 29-12-1984 for Sankranti and when she was staying in the parental house the first respondent came to that place on 13-1-1985 and beat her and asked her to follow him in the morning of the very next day. The parents of the appellant pleaded with the first respondent to stay back and participate in Sankranti festivities on 14-1-1985 and assured him that they would send the appellant either on 15th or 16th of January 1985. But the first respondent left the house even without informing any body in the house. The appellant went to the house of the first respondent three days after Sankranti but the respondent did not accept her. On the other hand he beat the appellant severely and drove her out of the house and the appellant returned to her parental house. Thereafter wards there was a mediation through the elders who were also the relatives of the first respondent. On their advice the appellant again went to the house of the first respondent but she. was again beaten severely and driven out from the house, threatening her that unless her father conveys the residential house to the first respondent, he would not let her into the house. The appellant also alleged that the first respondent wants to marry the daughter of his another elder sister. She claimed that she is ready and willing to live with the first ; respondent. The second respondent also filed a counter denying all material allegations in the petition.