PARESH SHAH Vs. VYJAYANTHIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. C.M.P. No. 26305 of 1998, filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, is allowed.

(2.) Both the parties filed compromise petition in C.M.P.No. 1743 of 1999requesting the Court to grant decree of divorce by consent. Few facts that are necessary for disposing of this appeal are, Paresh Shah and Vyjayantimala were married on 16-4-1994 as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They set up their marital home at H.No. 7112/26, Cement Building, Kalasiguda, Secunderabad, along with the parents and other family members of the appellant-husband. According to the respondent-wife, she married the appellant againstherwish and under compulsion of her parents. The marriage between the parties is an arranged one. The respondent stated that she was earlier engaged to a better person, and though she spent her time with that gentleman in Gujarat, she had cancelled the engagement. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to carry out the marital obligations, and on 10-12-1994, the respondent abused and harassed him. On 2-2-1995, the respondent left the company of her husband. The appellant is employed in Viceroy Hotel. The respondent ill-treated the appellant saying that he has got illicit relationship with one of his colleagues working in Viceroy Hotel. The case of the respondent before the Court below in her application, filed under Section 27 (1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was, she admitted the marriage between the parties. She denied that she ill-treated her husband. She also denied that she connected the appellant to any illicit relationship with his colleague working in Viceroy Hotel and that she is responsible for his losing his job. She stated that the appellant used to treat her cruelly and that he used to come home late in the nights in a drunken condition and behave cruelly without any love and affection. She stated that at the time of marriage her parents gave 10 tolas of gold and Rs. 1,20,000/- worth articles. Despite this, the appellant demanded for bringing more dowry from her parents, and when she refused, she was necked out by the appellant from the house. After hearing both the sides and on recording the evidence, the Court below by its order dated 12-9-1997 rejected the petition on the ground that the appellant husband failed to prove the alleged cruelty by the respondent-wife against him. Hence, he filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, as mentioned earlier, both the parties have filed compromise petition. The relevant portion of the compromise memo, filed by the appellant reads as under :

(3.) The relevant portion of the compromise memo, filed by the respondent, reads as follows :