DHANUM KUMARI K Vs. K V VARA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife is in appeal assailing the decree of divorce granted to the husband by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The marriage between the parties took place on 25-6-1989 at Machilipatnam. At the time of the marriage and presently also, the respondent was and is an employee of the Steel Plant at Visakhapatnam and was staying in the quarters allotted to him by the Steel Plant. At the time of the marriage he was hol ing the post of AssistantManager in the Steel Plant and it appears from the record that subsequently he was promoted as Deputy Manager. The appellant at the time of the marriage was doing research work in the Andhra University preparing for her Ph.D. It is the admitted case of the parties that the distance between the Steel Plant and the Andhra University is about 30 to 45 kms. It is also their admitted case that a condition had been agreed upon between them before the marriage requiring the respondent to take up a house near the Andhra University and the couple to live together there so as to facilitate the appellant pursuing her research career. Admittedly, the condition could not be complied with, it being the version of the respondent that he had tried to locate a house near Andhra University but it was not selected by the appellant, and the appellant contending that the respondent had not taken a house at all. The fact remains that both of them could not live together but the respondent was coming to the house of the elder sister of the appellant near the University, where the appellant was staying. It is on record that the respondent (sic. appellant) on occasions more than one disencouraged the respondent to meet her or to have correspondence with her through letters and telegrams. The petition for dissolution of the marriage was filed on 23-9-1992 on the ground of desertion by the respondent.

(2.) The pleadings of the respondent in support of the relief was that the marriage had not been consummated as the appellant has postponed the same until the submission of her thesis; after the marriage the appellant did not accompany him to Visakhapatnam but came there later on but without coming to him, she proceeded to the house of her sister. He had fixed up the marriage reception party on 3-9-1989 with all of his friends and had invited the appellant but she did not come and gave a telegram that she was not able to attend the function but that she may attend it on the following Monday. For that reason he had to cancel the programme and arrange it according to her wish but to that function she came as a guest and left immediately after the function. On 1-12-1989, she addressed a letter to the respondent asking him not to come to her sister's house and in another letter dated 15-12-1989 she asked him not to see her. She also issued telegrams asking him not to address letters or telegrams to her. The respondent had informed the matter to the parents, brother and sister of the appellant but there was no result. He hence sought the divorce.

(3.) The appellant contested the case on pleadings, as are essential to be stated here, that she is always willing to join the respondent; that he being under the influence of inimical people and on the ill-advice of others is avoiding her; and that the marriage, contrary to the contention of the respondent, was consummated on 25-8-1989 at the house of the parents of the appellant. She had not been treated with love and affection by the respondent, that the respondent has not made any effort for restitution of conjugal rights, that it is he who has deserted her and that she was not willing for divorce.