MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT is the wife of the respondent. She suffered a decree of divorce in O. P. No. 121 of 1994 dated 15-3-1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenali.

( 2 ) THE respondent-husband instituted the said O. P. No. 121 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the appellant-wife.

( 3 ) THE respondent-husband has averred in his petition that his marriage with the appellant took place on 15-1-1992 as per Hindu Customs at Nidubrolu in the house of the wife s parents. The appellant-wife joined the society of the respondent-husband and the marriage was consummated. The parties set up their family at Chilumuru and lived happily for one month. According to the respondent-husband, the wife developed aversion towards him within a short period of one month from the marriage for no reasons and used to pick up quarrels with him and other co-daughter-in-laws. The wife seems to have insisted the husband to put up a separate permanent family at Nidubrolu- the parents house of the wife or at any other town. The husband has also alleged that he came to know that his wife was suffering from a disease overian . According to the husband, on 10-5-92, the appellant-wife picked up quarrels with the husband and left to her parents house with all the jewellery and without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner-husband. Though the husband along with some mediators went to the parents house of the wife on 17-5-92 and requested her to join his society, the wife refused to oblige him. Thus, according to the husband, the appellant-wife has been living away from his society right from 10-5-1992 without any reasonable excuse or permission and such an action of the wife towards the husband is cruel act and therefore, the respondent-husband filed the petition in O. P. No. 121 of 1994 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

( 4 ) IT is seen from the lower Court proceedings, the appellant-wife though received notices in the said O. P. , but failed to contest the matter and as such she was set ex parte. The respondent-husband examined himself as P. W. 1. On the basis of his sole testimony, the lower Court has concluded thus: "the unrebutted evidence of P. W. 1 clearly shows that the respondent without any reasonable cause subjected the petitioner to cruelty and left his company and thereby deserted him. Therefore, I find good grounds are made out for divorce, and the petitioner is entitled to divorce. "while holding so, the lower Court allowed the O. P. and dissolved the marriage between the parlies by granting a decree of divorce. It is this order of the lower Court which is challenged in this appeal.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the appellant-wife, Sri M. Ramaiah, learned Counsel contended that the father of the respondent-husband had established a junior college in Chilumur village in the name of Kolasani Venkatasubbaiah Chowdary and Sri Rama Residential Junior College. The elder brother of the respondent-husband is the principal of the said college, whereas the respondent-husband is working as one of the lecturers in the said College. After the marriage of the respondent with the appellant, as the appellant possessed M. Sc. qualification, she was also appointed as lecturer in the said college with effect from 1-8-1992 and she served as such up to 16-7-1993. While serving in the said college, the appellant-wife prosecuted her further studies in M. Phil from 15-11-1994 to 10-12-1995 in Madras University after obtaining necessary permission from the husband and parents-in-law and was staying in the Presidency College Womens Students Hostel, Chepauk, at Madras.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel further contended that in the petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, the address o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document