PILLI VENKANNA Vs. PILLI NOOKALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant herein, who is the husband of the respondent against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 27-02-2002 in O.P.No.522 of 1999. The said O.P., was filed by the respondent herein under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The said O.P., was allowed directing the respondent herein to issue notice to the appellant to take her to his conjugal fold and lead marital life, within six months from the date of the order and on receipt of such notice, the appellant shall take the respondent to his matrimonial house and lead happy marital life with the respondent and also pay costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed under S.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 13-05-1973 at the residence of the respondent at Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu rites and customs and the same was consummated immediately and thereafter, she joined the respondent to lead marital life and they lived together for about six years happily. The respondent is a permanent employee of MES, Visakhapatnam and working as a Valveman and he is having a pucca house bearing door No.57-11-5 at Subashnagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, the respondent developed dislike against the petitioner and addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling and womanizing etc. It is stated that the respondent has a kept mistress by name Satyavathi and had been living with her at Marripalem and discarded the petitioner even though she is residing with the parents of the respondent and there is no change in the attitude of the respondent to lead normal life arid therefore, the petitioner left the house of the respondent and residing at her parents house. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 12-6-1979, for which no reply was given by the respondent and in view of the constant and continuous mental and physical harassment, she filed M.C.No.41 of 1979 on the file of the V - Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam, in which it was ordered for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. While so, the respondent married another woman by name Paradesamma and therefore, she filed C.C.No.777 of 1993 for bigamy on the file of the III - Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in which, the respondent was acquitted by order dated 17-2-1995. The said Paradesamma filed M.C.No.297 of 1995, but the same was dismissed on 10-6-1996. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for enhancement of maintenance amount, which was enhanced to Rs.200/-per month, but the said maintenance amount was not at all paid by the respondent though he is getting monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- per month apart from having moveable properties worth of Rs. 1,00,000/-besides immoveable properties worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. Meanwhile, the petitioner with the help of the caste elders negotiated to join the respondent and lead marital life, but the respondent rejected the efforts and on the other hand, the respondent filed O.P.No. 4 of 1995 seeking divorce and the said O.P. was dismissed on 18-11-1996 by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. After dismissal of the said O.P., the petitioner made attempts to join the respondent, but there was no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed O.P.No. 13 of 1995 for grant of maintenance and ultimately, maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.500/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent to take her to his family, but the respondent willfully and wantonly neglected and rejected requests of the petitioner and therefore, she filed the said petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the O.P. filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was not at all substantiated by any tenable evidence and the criminal complaint filed by the wife against her husband for the offence of bigamy was ended in acquittal and the wife herself disliking the husband since the date of marriage and used to pick up quarrels without any reason and in fact, the wife herself deserted her husband without any reason and the trial Judge erroneously disbelieved the evidence of RWs.2, 3 and 4 and erred in coming to the conclusion that the wife did not desert the husband. The allegations that the husband contracted several marriages are without any basis and therefore, the trial Judge ought not to have allowed the petition.