PYLA SREERANGANAYAKULU Vs. PYLA RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -husband, who filed O.P.No.203 of 2002 under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act against his wife on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam seeking dissolution of marriage, dated 29.08.1985 performed as per the Christian religion, at K.P.Gudem of East Godavari district, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 03.02.2006, preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions of his learned counsel, that the family Court's order impugned herein is contrary to law, outcome of failure to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in true and correct perspective with erroneous conclusions from misunderstanding the principles, that the learned Family Court Judge should have seen that the O.P.No.195 of 1998 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights on contest was ended in dismissal on merits inter -se covered by Ex.A.3 decree and order which clearly speaks that having compromised by the parties pursuant to which the husband withdraw the O.P.No.155 of 1997 filed by him for judicial separation and the wife who was supposed to withdraw the criminal case filed under Section 498 -A I.P.C., in C.C.No.612 of 1997 failed to do so without bona fides, that the learned judge, Family Court failed to appreciate these facts though that itself is suffice to say it constitutes cruelty, apart from the C.C.No.612 of 1997 was ended in acquittal and prosecution of the same is nothing but to harass him, that the learned Judge went wrong in saying that attending to the death ceremony of the father -in -law of the wife is as if outcome of her affection despite all through she was disliking the parents of the husband, that the trial Court's dismissal order is on surmises and imaginary grounds by ignoring the true facts and hence, to set aside the order impugned herein by allowing the appeal dissolving the marital tie.

(2.) WHEREAS , it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/wife that for this Court while sitting in appeal against the said reasoned judgment, the appellant has no legs to stand to impugn much less for the Court to sit against for any interference and thereby sought for dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) HEARD and perused the material on record. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. Now the points that arise for consideration are that: