N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the husband aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, R. R. District, Saroornagar on 19-10-1995 in O. P. No. 104 of 1992 rejecting his application filed under Sec. l3 (l) (i-a) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage with the respondent-wife, namely, Smt. Lavanya alias Sujatha.

( 2 ) THE appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriagewas solemnised on 1-8-1990 at Lalaguda, Secunderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. The said marriage was an arranged one. It is the case of the appellant-husband that after the marriage the parties lived together at malkajigiri. Later, some trouble started between them and thereafter the respondent-wife used to visit her parents house often without informing her husband and used to insist him to leave the joint family house of his father and take a separate house. It is also his case that the respondent-wife was unwilling to prepare food for his parents. When the demands of the respondent-wife were not heeded to, it is alleged, she approached one of her relatives Sri K. Narayana who was a retired D. S. P. and working as a Special magistrate at Secunderabad. It is also alleged that the said relative of the wife sri K. Narayana beat the appellant-husband along with some anti-social elements. It is further alleged that the wife deserted him. Later, she gave birth to a child. According to the appellant, the paternity of the child is doubtful. The respondent-wife filed a maintenance case against the husband and also a criminal complaint under Sec. 494-A (sic. 498-A) of I. P. C. and it was published in the Telugu daily udayam that the appellant was harassing the respondent for dowry. It is stated that for the said acts of the wife the appellant-husband suffered mental agony and torture and therefore sought divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the respondent-wife that the husband was ill-treatingher and his intention is to get rid of her so as to marry a second time to get more dowry. According to her, the appellant used to visit night clubs and he is in the habit of drinking and spending lavishly and used to force her for financing on one pretext or the other. Thus urging, she sought the dismissal of the petition filed for divorce.

( 4 ) IN support of their contentions both the parties adduced evidence. Thehusband examined himself as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses, P. Ws. 2 and 3 and marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-5. The wife examined herself as r. W. 1 and three other witnesses, R. Ws;2 to 4 and marked documents exs. B-1 to B-8.

( 5 ) P. W. 1 deposed in his evidence on the same lines as he pleaded in thepetition. P. W. 2 supported the case of the appellant and stated that the appellant was assaulted by the relative of the respondent-wife namely Mr. Narayana and one George and others in his house and that the complaint made by the appellant in that regard was not registered at the instance of said Narayana, a retired D. S. P. , who influenced the police to hush up the same. P. W. 3 is the colleague of P. W. 1 and he supported the stand taken by P. Ws. 1 and 2. R. W. 1 deposed in her evidence on the same lines as she pleaded in the written statement and in support of her case she relied upon the documents marked by her. R. W. 2, Mr. K. Narayana is the relative of R. W. 1. He denied in his evidence that he manhandled P. W. 1 and admitted that he filed a criminal case against P. Ws. 1 to 3 for defamation.

( 6 ) THE Court below after considering the entire evidence on recorddismissed the divorce petition holding that the wife did not desert the husband and on the other hand she requested him to lead a marital life and that the husband failed to prove the plea of cruelty. Aggrieved by the said order of the Court below, present appeal is filed by the husband.

( 7 ) IT is urged on behalf of the appellant-husband that the approach of thecour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document