B DAVID SUDHAKAR Vs. BANDLAMUDI NILDA RAJA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of O.P. No.28 of 1995 on the file of the District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, by the order dated 6-8-2001 led the aggrieved husband to file the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant filed the petition for dissolution of the marriage between him and the first respondent under Sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, (for brevity 'the Act') alleging that after the marriage between him and the first respondent on 15-5-1981 as per the Christian Marriage Act, three children were born out of the wedlock who were then aged 12 years, 11 years and 8 years. But the first respondent was throughout adamant and was behaving in a manner unbecoming of a household wife. By virtue of their employment while the first respondent was working in Bhimavaram, the appellant was working at Dharbagudem. During one of the visits by the appellants to Bhimavaram, one Bhaskara Rao, a lecturer, was found in the company of the first respondent on which the appellant questioned the first respondent, but the first respondent was ill-treating the appellant and later the first respondent was transferred to Jangareddigudem. Then the appellant and the first respondent started living together at Jangareddigudem in the house of B. Veera Reddy and the first respondent was coming late in the nights and was quarrelling with the appellant. Once she beat the appellant on the forehead with stick causing a grievous injury on which a report was given to the police. After living separately for sometime, the couple joined again but the quarrelsome nature of the first respondent continued. The first respondent was again transferred to Buttaigudem, but the couple was still living at Jangareddigudem. The last born son had to be kept at Tenali with the brother of the first respondent as the first respondent could not find time to look after him and once when the appellant was forced to stay away for one week due to curfew, on return, the first respondent picked up a quarrel and damaged the movables in the house. The first respondent made a big issue of the visit of the daughter of one Ratna Kumar, the neighbour to the appellant's house at Nawabpeta. On 2-5-1991, the first respondent bolted the bathroom door from outside when the appellant was taking bath and tried to pour kerosene over him to cause burn injuries. On the cries of the appellant, the neighbours intervened and a police report was given. Subsequently, the appellant detected letters from the files of the first respondent which were written by the second respondent asking the first respondent to meet him on the respective days. Thus, the first respondent was guilty of living in adultery and she herself filed M.C. No.38 of 1991 to forestall any action that may be taken by the appellant. The first respondent came to the high school of the appellant and threatened him and in view of the cruelty and adultery, the appellant filed O.P. No.173 of 1994 earlier for judicial separation and after withdrawing the same, filed this petition for grant of divorce.

(3.) The first respondent contested the petition denying all the allegations made against her and contending that she was subjected to harassment and cruelty for money throughout by the appellant who was addicted to all vices. She claimed that the appellant never cared to maintain the first respondent or the minor children and she was forced to give a legal notice for which a false reply was given. The first respondent claimed that she was compelled to file M.C. No.38 of 1991 for maintenance which was allowed after an elaborate enquiry granting monthly maintenance of Rs.200/- each to the first respondent's three minor children. The first respondent further stated that the appellant attributed unchastity to her uncharitably and pressed into service cooked up documents. The first respondent claimed that the second respondent is a vagabond and a characterless person and a close associate of the appellant. The second respondent who deserted his wife, was living with a concubine at Koppaka and could be easily hired for money and he purposefully remained ex parte in the petition. The first respondent further claimed that C.C. No.649 of 1994 was pending for the alleged assault on the first respondent by the appellant and she claimed that the motivated petition for grant of divorce is not maintainable on merits.