B. SRINIVAS Vs. BAJJURI GOLI MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inasmuch as both the appeals are filed against the common order dtd. 16/10/2015 made in F.C.O.P.Nos.218 of 2010 and F.C.O.P.No.128 of 2012 respectively, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned common order, the learned trial Judge while dismissing F.C.O.P. No. 218 of 2010 filed by the husband, appellant herein, seeking divorce and allowed F.C.O.P. No. 128 of 2012 filed by the wife, respondent herein, for restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) The appellant in both the appeals is the husband and the respondent is the wife. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as 'husband' and 'wife'. Since the facts in both the O.Ps. are more or less common, the facts stated in O.P. No. 218 of 2010 are referred in these appeals as common evidence was adduced therein.

(3.) The facts, in brief, which led to filing of the present appeals are as under:- Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19/8/2006 as per Hindu caste customs and traditions and after the marriage, the couple lived together happily for a period of three months. Since the wife was insisting him to put up separate residence and did not allow him for conjugal life, a panchayat was conducted before the elders at the instigation of husband and at the intervention of elders, the wife allowed the husband for conjugal life and during their wedlock, a female child was born on 25/9/2008. After the birth of the child, the wife remained at her parents' house and in spite of his best efforts, as the wife did not join his company, the husband again placed the matter before the elders and also before the Police. However, the wife did not join his company and voluntarily deserted his society in September, 2008. Therefore, the husband sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty and voluntary desertion. The wife filed her counter contending inter alia that two months after the marriage, husband started ill-treating her demanding for additional dowry at the instigation of his other family members and that she was treated as maid-servant. As she gave birth to a female child, her husband and his family members demanded Rs.1.00 lakh on the occasion of 21st day ceremony of the child and as the said demanded was not meted by her parents, her husband and in-laws did not turn up for the 21st day ceremony. However, due to the intervention of elders, husband took her back in the month of November, 2008 and eventually, in the month of November, 2009, as the husband and his family members, beat her black and blue, she returned back to her parents' house apprehending danger to her life. As the elders' mediation did not yield any result to take her back, she lodged a complaint with the Police. It was pleaded that the husband never attempted to see her child and that she was always ready and willing to join the conjugal society of the husband.