RAJESWARAMMA Vs. RAMA MOHAN CHOUDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the wife against the order of the Court below granting a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion.

(2.) The parties were married on ?4-6-1974 at Dharmapuri, Anantapur District. The husband was working in State Bank at Uravakonda. The wife belongs to Uravakonda. The husband's father has got two wives. They maintain two families, one at Dharmapuri and the other at Anantapur. The mother of the husband lives in Anantapur along with her two daughters and another son. According to the husband, he presented a sura of Rs. 7,000/- and 3 tolas of gold at the time of marriage, that the wife joined him soon after the marriage, but she came without the jewellery and when he questioned, she left the house on the pretext of answering calls of nature. He made intensive search, but could not trace her. Later, he received a notice in 1976 claiming maintenance to which he gave a reply asking her to come and join with him. But at the instance of her parents, she filed M. C. No. 1 of 1977 before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Gooty for maintenance and the petition was allowed. The wife was living separately, without any reasonable cause and there is no chance for reconciliation. He filed the petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife.

(3.) The appellant-wife filed a counter denying the allegations. She stated that her parents presented her with some jewellery and cash at the time of the marriage, that she was illtreated by her mother-in-law and the sister-in-law at Anantapur and the petitioner who was working at Uravakonda poisoned by their instigation had beaten her and driven her out. She had no alternative, but to return to her parents house in Uravakonda and filed the petition for maintenance which was allowed. As a counter blast to the maintenance case, he filed a petition for resolution of conjugal rights (0. P. No. 40 of 1977 and in that petition she filed a counter stating that she was willing to join him. Seeing her attitude, the respondent did not prosecute the petition and the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, she filed a petition for enhancement of the maintenance which was also allowed. At that stage, he filed the present petition for divorce with a view to avoid payment of maintenance.