SIKKAKOLLI VENKATA LALITHA Vs. SIKAKOLLI HARANATH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners the wife of the respondent. It is stated that the sister of the petitioner was married to the respondent, and on her death the petitioner was given in second marriage to the respondent, in the year 1992. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.324 of 2004, in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act') against the petitioner, seeking divorce. He pleaded that ever since his marriage with the petitioner, she was not co-operative, and she hardly lived with him, for a period of one year. It was alleged that the petitioner left the company of the respondent on 10-12-2000 and thereafter, she did not return. The respondent claimed that he is suffering from ailments like Diabetes and Lungs problem and is taking treatment.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that on account of the harassment caused to her by the respondent, she was forced to live at her mother's house at Visakhapatnam, and she is living without any means. She contends that she is required to look after her old mother, who is aged about 71 years, and she is subjected to litigation at Vishakhapatnam, by her bother. She pleads that the respondent filed the OP. at Guntur, only with a view to harass her and with an object of obtaining an ex parte decree, as she cannot attend the Court, due to lack of proper means and assistance.

(3.) The respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit together with a number of documents. He contends that the petitioner possesses considerable property and adequate means, as is evident from A-Schedule to O.S.No.422 of 2004, filed by the bother of the petitioner, in the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. He urges that in the said Suit, filed for partition, it was alleged that the petitioner holds 10% of the property, which is valued at about Rs.20,00,000/- On the second allegation of the petitioner, as to harassment, the respondent contends that it is, in fact, he, who was subjected to harassment, on account of the careless attitude of the petitioner, even while he was suffering from serious ill-health. He states that at a time, when he was suffering from serious ill-health and was not even in a position to move and needed the assistance of the petitioner, she left him abruptly. He contends that in case, the request of the petitioner is acceded to it would not be possible for him, to attend the Family Court at Vishakhapatnam.