MOTILAL B. NALK, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the dismissal of O. P. No. l of 1991 by the iii Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad filed under Sec. 13 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the appellant herein seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

( 2 ) APPELLANT herein is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife. Their marriage took place at Hyderabad on 13-5-1989. At me time of marriage, the appellant was working as Instructor in a Central Government Organisation and was living with his brother T. Rajaiah and his family in a rented house. It was the case of the appellant before the lower Court that immediately after their marriage, the respondent joined his society. Though mere were no problems for some time, but later on, she took up quarrels with the appellant, his elder brother and his wife. This led to anarchy in the household affairs. The respondent became pregnant. On 19-1-1990 the respondent was advised by Dr. Rama to go for scanning test, and accordingly the appellant took the respondent to Mahavir Hospital on 2-2-1990 where scanning test was conducted and in the said testitwas revealed that the respondent was carrying a child already died. However, at the instance of the parents of the respondent, it is alleged that she was taken to Woodland s Hospital on 3-2-1990 where she underwent abortion. Later on, the respondent was discharged on 5-2-1990 from the hospital.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the appellant that shifting of the respondent from Ratna hospital to Woodland s Hospital is not made known to him and the abortion was carried without his knowledge. The appellant contended that the respondent was influenced by her parents and she was taken to their residence without his knowledge. It is further alleged by the appellant that despite his efforts to bring her back to his house, the respondent failed to show any inclination to join his society and therefore, the appellant was forced to use the good office of caste-elders as well as some Manila Associations. Despite his efforts, it is stated that the in-laws of the appellant beat him on 6-1-1991 and the appellant also lodged a police complaint in this regard.

( 4 ) UNDER this background, the appellant filed O. P. No. 1 of 1991 before the iii Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

( 5 ) AS against the allegations of the appellant, the respondent filed a detailed counter inter alia contending that the appellant started demanding house-hold articles such as Television, Refrigerator etc. , and was also demanding dowry. That apart, it is alleged by the respondent that the appellant was influenced by his brother and sister-in-law and had not shown much interest in the respondent. It is stated that the grounds urged in the O. P. seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty are false as the appellant himself was cruel and unkind to the respondent. The respondent has further stated that the appellant has gone even to the extent of threatening to kill her and therefore, in this background, the respondent has resisted the claim of granting divorce.

( 6 ) IN support of their respective claims, on behalf of the appellant, the appellant examined himself as P. W. I and got Exs. A-lto A-5 marked. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent examined herself as R. W. 1 and also examined two other witnesses as R. Ws. 2 and 3. Exs. B-1 to B-5 were also marked on her behalf.

( 7 ) ON the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court found that the ingredients contemplated under Section 13 (l) (ia) of the Act have not been fulfilled and therefore, dismissed the O. P. holding that the appellant has failed to prove mental cruelty. Aggrieved by the said order and decretal order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

( 8 ) SRI P. Venugopal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before us that though the ingredients

Click Here to Read the rest of this document