ANCHURI SUBBARAJU Vs. ANCHURI SUNITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal order dated 11.09.2003 passed in O.P. No. 396 of 2000 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, (for short, 'the trial Court'), the unsuccessful petitioner preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) WHEREAS it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/wife in opposing the claim and in support of the lower Courts dismissal decree and order that the petitioner/husband did not come to court with clean hands and suppressed material facts to take advantage of his own wrongs, that she is always ready to join him and it is he, for her not obliging his demands to alienate the property given to her by her mother, on one pretext or the other, want to get rid of her and driven her out of his house and falsely filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights, that when she was ready to join him the same was decreed and even thereafter when she went to his house along with her mother (RW.2), mediator (RW.3) she was beaten and not allowed to join reiterating the demand for the property for which she was constrained to give a complaint that was registered as crime No. 192 of 1998 and covered by CC No. 180 of 1999 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. She contends that while the criminal case was pending, when the respondent/ wife was attending the Court to give evidence in the matter, the petitioner/ husband made assault and threatened her not to give evidence against him and one Simhachalam, for which she lodged a complaint covered by C.C No. 270 of 2000 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. After due enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC and was released on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, instead of sentencing him to jail; that what the Court held under Section 498 -A IPC in giving benefit of doubt is even proved of the demands to alienate the property and when she along with her mother and another mediator went to their house to join back the husband, she was beaten, same does not constitute the offence under Section 498 -A IPC. There was no observation that it was a false complaint or intended to harass her husband and thereby that cannot be taken advantage by him. She further contends that the suit for maintenance filed by her was for inability to maintain and for she was not allowed to join him and the trial Court, after considering all these facts, rightly dismissed the divorce claim for no grounds on cruelty or desertion, and thus for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismiss the appeal.