VEGI JAGADESH KUMAR Vs. V RADHIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order and decree passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No. 84/95 (Old O.P. No. 288/94), dated 22-5-1997, filed by the husband under Section 13(l)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act against the wife Radhika for a decree of divorce and for custody of the child Kum. Vijeta.

(2.) The rank of the parties is mentioned as before the Court below.

(3.) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:- The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 25-8-1988 at Visakhapatnam. After the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner at Visakhapatnam. The marriage proposal was made by one Pentakota Apparao, a friend of respondent's parents. At the time of marriage proposal, the petitioner and his parents were not willing for alliance as the respondent was a student in Medical College at Guntur and she may not be a good housewife. But the petitioner and his parents were convinced through the said Pentakota Apparao that immediately after the marriage the respondent would discontinue her studies and the present prosecution of studies is only a time pass. The betrothal function that was originally scheduled to 1-6-1988 had to be postponed to 23-8-1988. It was only on such assurance that the respondent immediately after the marriage would discontinue her studies, the petitioner and his parents agreed for the alliance and marriage was celebrated on 25-8-1988. After the marriage though the respondent joined the petitioner, she was insisting to continue her studies. The same was refused by the petitioner. During Dassera festival the petitioner went to Guntur where the respondent was staying. The respondent and her parents tried to brain wash the petitioner by cajoling him for partition of the properties and shifting him to Guntur to stay with the respondent. This made the petitioner upset, Because of his refusal to make a demand for partition, the respondent and her parents developed ill-will towards the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent started ill-treating the petitioner and even behaved in an indifferent manner. The respondent though was staying with the petitioner for some time she left for her parents house at Guntur for confinement on 10-2-1990. She gave birth to a female child on 1-6-1990. After coming to know of the delivery, the petitioner, his parents and sisters went to Guntur to fix the naming ceremony of the baby. They also got fixed Muhurtham for the return of the respondent to Visakhapatnam on 12-8-1990. On 12-8-1990, the petitioner enquired the respondent over phone that by which train she is coming to Visakhapatnam which was replied by the respondent in a careless manner and she told that she would be coming on 15-3-1990 to attend her counsion's marriage at Visakhapatnam. There only he could see and meet the respondent. The petitioner met the respondent at bride's residence and invited her to come back home with baby to which the respondent replied bluntly that she has no intention to join the petitioner. The parents of the respondent took a house in Srinagar, near Rama Talkies at Visakhapatnam on rent and put their son, another daughter and the respondent therein. They got joined the respondent in Medical College at Visakhapatnam where she is attending the college regularly. Even though the petitioner demanded the respondent to rejoin him, she replied that she was happy in continuing her studies than to return to his home. The attitude of the respondent put the petitioner to mental agony as he lost physical comfort and sexual happiness. The petitioner got issued a registered notice calling upon the respondent to rejoin the petitioner to which the respondent gave reply taking an inconsistent stand. After coming to know of the contents of the reply letter of the respondent, the petitioner's mother got upset. Because of the said shock she had an heart attack on 6-4-1991 and died. Even the death of his mother did not make the respondent to change her attitude. She did not attend the funeral function. Hence the petition for divorce and custody of the child.