A spouse's conduct that causes mental agony and harm to the reputation of the other spouse amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) EXPOSURE of so much hatred and animosity aplenty in this case which culminated in the rocking of a matrimonial home of a Judicial Officer.

( 2 ) APPELLANT is the wife whose marriage with the respondent, a newly recruited Judicial Officer of the rank of District Munsif, took place on 18-5-1994. The respondent took charge as District Munsif, Amalapuram, which is his first posting, on 4-5-1994.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed O. P. No. 108 of 1997 on the file of the Additional senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry (Old O. P. No. 42 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, amalapuram) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) and 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Serious allegations and counter allegations have been levelled against each other by the respondent-husband and appellant-wife. However, we do not propose to trace those countless allegations in this judgment. We may only state few relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.

( 4 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are addressed as petitioner-husband and respondent-wife as per their array in O. P. No. 108 of 1997 on the file of the Court below.

( 5 ) THE marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised on 18-5-1994 at Kinnera Kalyana Mandapam, Srikakulam as per the customs to which the parties belong. The marriage was consummated soon after. Just two weeks prior to the marriage, the petitioner was appointed as a District munsif at Amalapuram and joined office on 4-5-1994. The petitioner put up his family at Amalapuram on 23-5-1994 along with the respondent. As the petitioner was to undergo training at Hyderabad, he took the respondent also along with him and they both lived in Hyderabad city till the completion of his training, upto 12-10-1994. After completion of training, the petitioner was posted in the old station i. e. , Amalapuram and he joined as II Additional district Munsif in the month of October, 1994. The petitioner put up his family with the respondent at Amalapuram and led conjugal life.

( 6 ) PETITIONER alleged that as the family of the respondent is financially affluent and as one of her brothers viz. , Sri Suryanarayana was working as a Divisional Forest Officer, the respondent had developed to lead an affluent style of living. However, petitioner being a Judicial Officer in the lower rung of the judiciary, with his salary, has to maintain his parents and other family members. Though the petitioner and respondent lived happily at Hyderabad during the training period of the petitioner, but after returning to Amalapuram, according to the petitioner, troubles started then onwards. As per the advice of the family members of the respondent in particular, the father and brother of the respondent, the respondent started harassing the petitioner requiring him to look to new avenues which fetch him additional revenue. But the petitioner withstood the pressure exerted by the respondent. Petitioner further alleged that the temptation and greed for money are so much in the respondent that she became desperate and started pestering the petitioner to procure wealth by any means using his official capacity.

( 7 ) PETITIONER claimed that the respondent not only started harassing the petitioner but made his life miserable and used to pick up frequent quarrels and was creating nuisance. He further alleged that the respondent used to complain to other Judicial Officers on flimsy grounds and at times she used to abuse the petitioner in vulgar language even in the presence of staff members working in their house. The respondent, according to the petitioner, used to leave the house without even informing him, go to her parents house and from there, she used to give a telephonic message requiring the petitioner to make amendments. Even the brother of the respondent Mr. Suryanarayana used to threaten the petitioner on telephone that if he failed to act on his advice, his career will b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document