KONATHALA SURYA PRAKASH NAIDU Vs. KONTHALA ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act by the husband against the wife, aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2004 dismissing his petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in O.P. No.570 of 2000 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, to dissolve their marital tie dated 21.04.1994.

(2.) THE contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as the oral submissions by the learned counsel for the appellanthusband Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam in nutshell are that the order dismissing the divorce petition by the lower Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case and in ignorance of the material on record which clinchingly establishes that the petitioner -husband is entitled to divorce from the respondent -wife is guilty of cruelty and desertion including from filing of a false criminal case under Section 498 - A I.P.C against him and his family members and the trial Court gravely erred in ignoring the same. It is also the contention that the evidence on record of petitioner -P.W -1 besides two more witnesses and in particular that of P.W -3 establishes cruelty and desertion meted by the petitioner in the hands of the respondent besides from the Ex.A -5 acquittal judgment in C.C. No.258 of 2001. It is the further contention that the respondent -wife treated the petitioner cruelly and harassed intentionally including by filing the false case and went to the extent of making deliberately false accusations as if he got extra marital relationship with one Dhana Lakshmi, that itself is a ground to put an end to the marital tie as that constitutes cruelty for nothing more to establish for nothing to show that there are any bonafides or basis in making such allegations, hence to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned dismissal order of the lower Court and grant decree of divorce.

(3.) WHEREAS , the learned counsel for the respondent -wife in the appeal in support of the dismissal order of the lower Court contended that the lower Court's order having fresh in mind of the facts by scanned the evidence on record and by appreciation of facts and law by coming to a right conclusion with reasons, no way requires interference by this Court while sitting against but for to confirm and hence to dismiss the appeal.