VARALAXMI CHARKA ALIAS RENUKA Vs. SATYANARAYANA CHARKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree rendered by the Family court, Hyderabad in OP No. 43 of 1997 instituted by the respondent-husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking annulment of the marriage that took place between them on 15/11/1989. This tragic case unfolds the grave impact, an otherwise innocuous piece of information not being put forth at the very beginning, will have, upon the conjugal life of two highly qualified individuals.

(2.) THE respondent-husband who hails from hyderabad City has pursued his career in a performing art - a dance form of India. His mastery over this Fine art has taken him to shores as far as New York City where he settled down in 1981 and eventually became a citizen of the United States of America. Upon an informal introduction by a common friend, they came in close contact with each other facilitating exchange of views and then agreed to get united in wedlock. By then both the parties are beyond their prime of age. The appellant, being equally qualified was working as a Lecturer with one of the institutes of higher learning in the city of Hyderabad. The appellant could persuade her parents in agreeing to this marriage and ultimately the marriage took place at Hyderabad on 15-11-1989. It is the assertion of the appellant that they lived merrily at the residence of the parents of the respondent-husband in the immediate aftermath of the wedding, but, however, it is an admitted position that they visited Tirupati, Delhi and later Janakpur in nepal. Due to the acute winter prevailing in that Himalayan Kingdom, the appellant-wife became sick and consequently needed immediate medical attention at the hands of dr. Thapa there at Nepal. The respondent-husband left for New York on 4-1-1990 promising that he will be sending the necessary travel documents for enabling the appellant to join him at New York. Discounting the allegations levelled against the appellant herein, with the solicitous assistance rendered by the respondent, the appellant had joined him at New York on 19-7-1990. Even during her stay at New York she needed medical attention and consequential hospitalization, for she was suffering from bronchial Asthma. She underwent treatment for a while, but, however, she had been advised by the respondent-husband to move out of New York and join a cousin of the appellant at Los Angeles. Ultimately from los Angeles she had returned to India in the 1st week of January 1991. A tragic event of death of her father occurred immediately thereafter. There is no reunion between the parties thereafter. Thus the joint enterprise undertaken by the appellant and the respondent by their union in wedlock on 15-11-1989 had hardly lasted for one year's time and from 1991 they were living separately in India and USA respectively. The appellant made an abortive attempt by instituting OP no. 311 of 1991 on the file of IV Additional judge, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, but, however, the same had been allowed to be dismissed for want of necessary zeal to pursue the same (on her part ). As noticed supra, the respondent-husband has instituted op No. 43 of 1997 in January, 1997 which was ultimately decreed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage (that took place between the parties on 15-11-1989 ). Apart from examining himself as P. W. 1, one more witness was examined on behalf of the respondent-husband as P. W. 2 and he got marked Exs. A-1 to A-33 while the appellant herein has examined herself as R. W. 1, but did not choose to lay any documentary evidence on her behalf.

(3.) THE parties are fairly honest in setting forth their pleadings and made no attempt to disguise their mutual admiration, love and affection to each other. Refreshingly, in this case, we have been saved of the traumatic experience of sifting through the evidence of interminable and inexhaustible allegations of bitter relationship between the parties, which is becoming a common feature nowadays in cases relating to matrimonial disputes. Both p. W. 1 the husband and R. W. 1, the appellant-wife, have deposed that they still have love and affection towards each other notwithstanding few discordant notes voiced on a low key.