Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL REDDY, MOTILAL B.NAIK
Lokeshwari - Appellant
Versus
Srinivasa Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 02-11-00
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 9, 13 – Restitution of conjugal rights – Alimony – C. M. A. arises out of an order passed by Court of Subordinate Judge, in O. P. filed by husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and C. M. A. arises out of an order passed by same Court in O. P. filed by wife under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights – Subordinate Judge, allowed, O. P. filed by husband and granted a decree of divorce between parties and dismissed O. P. filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights, by a common order – Wife has filed these two appeals aggrieved by common order passed by Court below in two respective O. Ps – Held, Court is of view, instead of directing respondent to pay maintenance to appellant, respondent could be directed to pay a lump sum amount towards permanent alimony to appellant, which in court opinion, could be just and reasonable for her maintenance – Court is of view, an amount could be awarded as permanent alimony to appellant – Court have also taken into consideration amount already paid by respondent to appellant during pendency of these appeals as directed by this Court in C. M. P – Cross-Objections Dismissed
( 1 ) C. M. A. No. 1082 of 1996 arises out of an order passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kavali in O. P. No. 2 of 1988 filed by the husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and C. M. A. No. 1257 of 1996 arises out of an order passed by the same Court in O. P. No. 85 of 1988 filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali allowed, O. P. No. 2 of 1988 filed by the husband and granted a decree of divorce between the parties and dismissed O. P. No. 85 of 1988 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, by a common order dated 28-9-1995. The wife has filed these two appeals aggrieved by the common order passed by the Court below in the two respective O. Ps.
( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed to as the wife and husband.
( 3 ) THE appellant-wife and respondent- husband are doctors by profession. Their marriage took place on 19 -3-1981 at Secunderabad as per custom and usage. The wife joined the society of the husband eight months after the marriage. Initially, both of them lived together at Kavali for about four months. Thereafter, the husband secured a job at Vijayawada and he worked there for a period of one year.
( 4 ) BEFORE the Court below, the case of the husband in O. P. No. 2 of 1988 is that during his stay at Vijayawada, the wife hardly stayed with him for a month and she stayed more in Kavali and was visiting Vijayawada now and then. During her brief visits to Vijayawada she used to pick up quarrels with the husband without any cause and used to expose the family affairs to public. According to the husband, the wife never intended to keep up the prestige of the family. She often used to scold the petitioner and his family members without any justification. She used to create scenes by removing the mangalasutra and cause lot of mental agony and suffering to the husband.
( 5 ) AFTER his serving a period of one year at Vijayawada, the husband was appointed as Government Doctor and posted to Pedapariya of Gudur Taluk of Nellore District and he worked there for about a year and half. It is alleged by the husband, the wife used to visit his place occasionally but failed to give him the conjugal happiness. She was bent upon creating nuisance during her visit. According to the husband, he was transferred to Hyderabad after serving about a year and half at Pedapariya. By that time the wife completed her D. G. O. which she discontinued by the date of her marriage.
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the husband, he put up his family at Hyderabad with his wife. A daughter is also born to them at Hyderabad. Even at Hyderabad, the wife was behaving indecently by scolding the husband. Due to the cruel conduct of the wife, since he had no option, the husband cultivated the habit of adjusting with the wife. Despite his tolerance, the attitude of the wife was such that it became impossible for the husband to adjust with her.
( 7 ) AFTER working about one year and eight months at Hyderabad, the husband seems to have secured a job in Iran. He came to his native place Kavali along with the wife and daughter and lived there for one month. During that period, the wife never treated him as her husband and did not behave with him properly. The husband requested the wife to treat him as her husband and behave properly. However, she did not care for his advice. The husband before leaving for Iran, requested the wife to stay at Kavali till he sends communication to her to go over to Iran after getting visa and other transport facilities ready.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to the husband, after one and half years he returned from Iran to Kavali and requested the wife to come along with the child to Iran. However, the wife in her usual arrogant way refused to follow his words. The husband alleges that the wife has been habitually guilty of causing mental agony and treated him with cruelty. The attitude o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.