Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 1424
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.A.SWAMY, G.YETHIRAJULU
Muppa Venkateswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Avula Asha - Respondent
Decided On : 12-12-02
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 12 – Claim – Divorce - Family court – Dissolution – Marriage - Hindu custom – Allegations - Since his elder brother did not come forward to meet the marriage expenses he contracted loans for marriage and he is now repaying same - It is also his case that respondent refused for conjugal relationship in spite of several attempts made by him and she bluntly refused to cohabitate with him by contending that marriage was celebrated against her wish - He has also given some dates about coming and going of respondent from his house – Held, Since case of appellant is that he made efforts to convince respondent to join him onerous responsibility is on him to prove that efforts made by him failed and they became a futile exercise whether respondent made any efforts or not - On the other hand except giving - Notice and rejoinder respectively - No effort whatsoever was made by appellant to save marriage - Even if we ignore lapses on part of appellant, since a dotty is cast on Court to save marriage till last minute for over six months court talked we pleaded and court requested him to save marriage since he is not doubting chastity of his wife and give her one opportunity to prove that she is faithful to him - With reluctance at one stage though he has taken respondent to his house appellant did not allow her to enter the bedroom stating that he would break her legs if she enters his bedroom - This is the conduct of appellant which is highly reprehensible and cannot be appreciated by this Court - Since appellant was expressing so much of hatred and animosity against respondent court suggested respondent to agree for divorce by mutual consent - Appeal is dismissed
( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order dated 11-3-2002 in O. P. No. 156 of 1998 on the file of the Judge, Family court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant- husband seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage and also on the ground of incompatibility between the respondent-wife and himself.
( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has taken place on 16-6-1995 at Angalakuduru, erstwhile Tenali taluk of Guntur District as per Hindu custom and it is an arranged marriage. We need not traverse all the allegations made by the appellant in his legal notices, Original petition and the evidence adduced in the matter.
( 3 ) THE short question that falls for consideration of this Court would be whether there is any truth in the allegation of the appellant that the respondent did not cohabitate with him as the marriage has taken place against her will.
( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, at no point of time, the appellant did not plead any unchastity to the wife. It is not his case that she did not cohabitate with him because of her illicit contact with any other person. The legal proceedings were put in motion by issuance of a lawyer s notice on 3-12-1997. As per the version of the appellant, he spent rs. 10,000/- to purchase gold ornaments and rs. 30,000/- to purchase sarees to his wife apart from spending Rs. 80,000/- towards other expenses of the marriage. Since his elder brother did not come forward to meet the marriage expenses, he contracted loans for the marriage and he is now repaying the same. It is also his case that the respondent refused for conjugal relationship in spite of several attempts made by him and she bluntly refused to cohabitate with him by contending that the marriage was celebrated against her wish. He has also given some dates about the coming and going of the respondent from his house. According to him, the respondent left his house in November, 1995 and thereafter she did not return back to marital home. In 1995, a close friend of him by name venkateswara Rao residing in Guntur made sincere attempts to convince the respondent and her father and both of them refused for the proposal made by venkateswara Rao. He also stated that another friend by name Hanumantha Rao residing at Hyderabad also visited the house of the respondent s parents and the attempts made by him to bring reconciliation did not yield any result. With the above allegation he pleaded that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and since there is no possibility of reconciliation because of mental compatibility between him and his wife, he sought for divorce by mutual consent. To this legal notice, a reply legal notice was sent by the respondent on 8-12-1997 denying all the allegations made by the appellant and as per the case of the respondent she was sent by the appellant to Tenali on 26-10-1996 for the annaprasana ceremony of his foster brother s granddaughter and thereafter, the appellant did not allow her to come to hyderabad. In paragraph-7 of the legal notice, it was categorically stated by the respondent "in the light of the above facts, my client is ready and willing to join with your client immediately at Hyderabad". In paragraph-8, it was also categorically stated that since the appellant changed his residence, he may be directed to furnish the new address so that she can immediately join him in his new abode. A rejoinder dated 26-12-1997 was sent by the appellant to the respondent denying the averments in the reply notice dated 8-12-1997 and in fact, he denied the fact of sending the respondent to his brother s house to attend "annaprasana ceremony. In paragraph-13, it is categorically stated "with reference to the allegations made in paragraph-8 my client reiterates that there has been no possibility in view of mental uncompatability on the part of your client that m
