D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed in O. P. No. 6717 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Kurnool, which was filed under Section 13 of Hindu marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce. The trial Court on 30. 6. 1992 allowed the said O. P. , and thereby dissolved the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent//wife by granting a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the same, appellant/ wife preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court in the Original petition.

( 3 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are that the couple got married in the year 1981 and they lived together for about nine years. Afterwards it seems there arose differences, as a result, wife and husband started living separately.

( 4 ) BE that as it may, husband filed o. P. No. 6717 of 1991 seeking decree of divorce on the ground that he was being denied right of conjugal society by his wife. It is his allegation that his wife was suffering from some sort of disorder and she is aggressive in nature. Therefore, it is alleged that such denial of conjugal society by wife amounts to cruelty, which should result in granting a decree of divorce.

( 5 ) WIFE made certain allegations against her husband in order to repel the averments made by husband.

( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact that earlier wife filed two criminal cases, particulars of which are not very much relevant, and it is also a fact that in those cases husband got orders of acquittal.

( 7 ) IN order to substantiate respective contentions, parties gotthemselves examined as P. W. 1 and R. W. 1. Further, on behalf of husband Ex. A-1 lawyer s notice dated 13-7-1990 got issued by husband to wife and ex. A-2 reply notice dated 10-8-1990 have been marked. No documents were marked on behalf of wife.

( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is relevant to refer important aspects that were spoken to by husband in his deposition as P. W. 1.

( 9 ) HE deposed that his wife denied conjugal society without anyjustifiable reason and as such he was subjected to mental cruelty. He further deposed that all the efforts made by him became futile. it is his further deposition that his wife was violent and adamant whenever he tried to have conjugal society with her and it is also deposed that she was not attending to regular household work, on the contrary she was always in nostalgic mood. It is his specific deposition that his wife ascribes him mental disorder. It is further deposed that his wife deserted him and started living with her parents since the year 1981 (sic. 1991 ). According to P. W. 1, a notice for divorce was got issued to his wife. He further deposed that they have been living together since 1983 by setting up independent family. It is his further evidence that during the year 1983 and 1984 he worked as Works Inspector at Nandikotkur and atmakur and he was being transferred from place to place. it is his evidence that when he was working at Adoni, his parents joined him. He also deposed about jewellery and cash that were of fered to him at the time of marriage, and those details are not necessary for resolving the controversy between the parties.

( 10 ) IT is his categorical statement that he was not the consenting party to lead marital life with his wife even if she is ready to come and join him. This was the very stand taken by the husband when this Court initiated conciliatory proceedings in this matter. This is all the evidence of the husband in order to seek a decree of divorce.

( 11 ) ON the other hand, wife as R. W. 1 deposed that her marriage was performed in the year 1981 and that at that time her husband was studying Engineering at madras. She further deposed that prior to 1981 her parents-in-law were residing at sindhanur in Raichur district, and after they came and started staying with her husband, they started

Click Here to Read the rest of this document