N NARASIMHA PRATAP Vs. N AUDILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition seeking dissolution of marriage by the husband-appellant having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16-6-1985. The appellant in his petition seeking divorce stated the marriage to have been consummated and later the respondent to have also joined him at his residence in Cuddapah. It is also stated that the appellant's mother asked the respondent to go to her parent's house in the month of Ashadham as per the family custom but she refused to go but that the respondent used to be absent from the house mostly taking advantage of the petitioner-appellant's absence for about 25 days in a month in connection with his official duties. The appellant works in the Flying Squad of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Later on the appellant found growth of moustache and beard on the face of the respondent and on being questioned the respondent admitted the fact and had stated that she was taking care to cover such growth by application of cosmetics. The appellant felt cheated and fraud to have been practised over him at the time of the marriage because of which misunderstandings arose between the parties. There was no cordial relationship and in the month of October, when the maternal uncle of the respondent came to his house, there was heated exchange between him and the mother and brother of the appellant and the maternal uncle because of such features on the face of the respondent. The maternal uncle, Ananda Rao, took away the respondent to Chittoor without the consent of the appellant or his family members and since then i.e., 20-10-1995 the respondent had deserted him and had not come back in spite of his efforts.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the respondent denying the allegations. The fact of the appellant's remaining away from home for 25 days in a month and the respondent's going away to her parents' house during that period and the fact that the respondent had grown beard and moustache were specifically denied. The respondent instead stated that the appellant used to remain absent two to three days in a week and their marriage having consummated, the appellant was having a satisfactory martial life with the respondent. During the days in which he was at home he was also having the company of the respondent. He never raised any objection either before or after the marriage regarding any growth on the face of the respondent. The marriage had been performed only after the respondent had been interviewed not only by the members of the family but also specifically by the appellant himself in a separate room. Shortly after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent and his younger brother and his wife had also gone on a honeymoon trip to South India and there also the marriage between the parties was consummated. The appellant's mind was poisoned against the respondent by his mother and brother who wanted him to marry a second time and get high benefits out of it. She had never willingly left the house of the appellant and several attempts of mediation at the instance of her father to bring her back to the marital home had failed. The petition for divorce had been filed only as a retaliatory action to a notice issued by her on 1-8-1987 through advocate requesting the appellant to come and take her as she was ready to join his conjugal society of her lord meaning the appellant but that the appellant sent a reply with false allegations. Thereafter she filed O.P.66 of 1987 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition for divorce was filed thereafter as a counter-blast.

(3.) Both sides examined witnesses and also filed documents. The learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, on an analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, held there to have not been any desertion on the part of the respondent. No grounds for divorce having been made out, the application was dismissed. Since, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the evidence, we agree with the conclusions reached by the learned Subordinate Judge, it is not necessary for a detailed analysis of the evidence to be reflected here ss was decided by the apex Court in Girijanandini vs. Bijendra Narain. We would hence briefly refer to the material features of the evidence to support the conclusion reached.