T. CH. SURYYA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24-4-1987 passed by the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, in OS No. 52 of 1983.

( 2 ) SHE filed the suit for recovery of Mehar amount and for return of jehaz articles to her, mentioning in the plaint inter alia that she was married to the defendant on 1-12-1972 at Hanamkonda and she gave birth to three sons and that her husband through a letter dated 7-1-1983 addressed to her father pronounced triple talaq dissolving the marriage and that later the defendant married another woman by name Azamath Sullhana and therefore, she was entitled to the deferred mehar amounting to Rs. 5,000. 00 and two dinners of the value of Rs. 10. 00 each with interest at 18% per annum and for the return of jehaz articles.

( 3 ) THE defendant while resisting the suit pleaded that the letter dated 7-1-1983 was a forged document and that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was subsisting and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to Metier amount. He further pleaded that on account of the conduct of the plaintiff who refused to lead conjugal Hie with him, he had to marry another woman by name Azmath Suhhana and his attempts to take back the plaintiff had not been fructified.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues at the time of settlement of issues: (1) Whether the defendant addressed a letter dated 7-1-1983, to the plaintiff effecting a divorce and the marriage between the defendant and the plaintiff stands dissolved. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the Mehar amount and interest thereon. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have return of the jehaz articles, if so whether the list annexed to the plaint is correct and whether they are in the custody of the defendant. (4) Whether there is no cause of action for the plaintiff. (5) To what relief?

( 5 ) AT the time of trial, two witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff and the documents Exs. Al to A4 were marked, besides marking Exs. C1 to C3 for the Court. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the defendant, but no documents were marked.

( 6 ) UPON considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. On issue Nos. 1 and 4 it was held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had addressed Ex. A3 letter in Ex. A4 envelope and that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. On issues Nos. 2 and 3, it was held by the Court below that the defendant should return the articles as mentioned in the list excluding certain hems and also the articles as mentioned in the b schedule. Ultimately in view of the findings on issue Nos. l and 4, the suit was dismissed and that on issue Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff was found to be entitled to the return of the articles as mentioned in the judgment.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there has been ample evidence to prove the divorce between the parties and the Court below has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence on the point. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that Ex. A3 has not been proved by any acceptable evidence and there has been no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and therefore, it is a case where the plaint ought to have been rejected at the inception.

( 8 ) THE points that arise for my determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether Ex. A3 letter dated 7-1-1983 is proved; and (2) Whether there is valid divorce between the appellant and the respondent as claimed ?point No. 1: The oral evidence adduced on this point is that of the appellant herself as PW1 and her father as PW2. Ex. A3 letter is said to have been addressed by the respondent herein to his father-in-law i. e. , PW2 in Ex. A4 envelope. Ex. A3 is in Urdu language and its translation copy has been made avail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document