PUPPALA ISHRAMMA Vs. PUPPALA DHANARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Sec. -100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Gajpati in MAT Appeal No.02 of 2013.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter have been referred to per the position assigned in the original Court i.e. the Appellant as the (Opposite Party-wife) and the Respondent as the (Petitioner- husband).

(3.) The case of the Petitioner (husband) is that his marriage with the Opposite Party (wife) was solemnized on 16/3/2001 as per their caste and custom. It is alleged that from the very first infatuate night, the Petitioner found the Opposite Party (wife) to be frigid. The Petitioner (husband) then thought that it was due to some mental shock that the Opposite Party (wife) was not in a position to cooperate with him to enjoy the marital life. Having carried that idea in mind, he did not disclose this secret to others and returned to his place of work. The couples were invited by the parents of the bride after a fortnight of their marriage. The Petitioner (husband) being engaged in his place of service could not go to his in-laws place, when the Opposite Party (wife) had only gone to her parents house after fortnight of their marriage. She thereafter did not return inspite of repeated request. So, the Petitioner (husband) went to father-in-laws place with the husband of his sister to bring back the Opposite Party (wife). It is alleged that then they were not treated properly and the responses from the side of the Opposite Party (wife) and her family members were very cold and shocking. The matter was then reported to the well wishers of the parties. Accordingly a meeting being convened in the village, there was further persuasion to bring back Opposite Party (wife) which however did not yield any fruitful result. The Petitioner (husband) then approached the local Legal Services Authority for amicable settlement. When the Opposite Party (wife) despite notice did not come forward for the same, the Petitioner (husband) initiated a proceeding under sec. -9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short hereinafter called the HM Act). The proceeding being allowed, the Opposite Party (wife) did not obey the same and on the other hand, she initiated a proceeding under Sec. -125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court then directed her to obey the decree. So, she went with the Petitioner (husband). But then also the Petitioner (husband) was not allowed to enjoy his conjugal rights. The Court then being apprised of the said fact, when asked the Opposite Party (wife), she instead blamed Petitioner (husband) that he insisted her not to return to his house. It is stated that thereafter, the Opposite Party (wife) withdrew herself from the society of the Petitioner (husband) and then imposed a condition that the Petitioner (husband) should separate himself from his parents for seeing her return. The proceeding under sec. -125 of the Cr.P.C. in the meantime ended with an order of payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500.00 to the Opposite Party (wife). It is said that thereafter, the petition for enhancement of maintenance has been filed by the Opposite Party (wife). All these being stated to have caused mental agony to the Petitioner (husband), he sought for a decree of dissolution of marriage.