D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree in O. P. No. 490 of 1982 dated 8th March, 1988, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, vijayawada. The respondent-husband filed the O. P. for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The wife opposed the petition and she alleged that variousallegations in the petition are false and she was never guilty of cruelty to the husband. On the other hand, the husband was guilty of cruelty towards her. She claims that she was harassed and she was fleeced of money and they have not been living apart and even after the filing of the O. P. , the husband has been visiting her.

( 2 ) THE court, after elaborate consideration, came to the conclusion that the wife is guilty of cruelty both on the basis of the allegations made in the petition which were spoken to by P. W. I and his father P. W. 2 and also on the basis of unfounded, baseless and reckless allegations made in the written statement filed by the wife and the subsequent events.

( 3 ) IN this appeal Sri Noushad Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife contends that the trial court committed a grave mistake in taking into consideration the subsequent events and the allegations made in the written statement/counter. He contends that as allegations made in a counter or written statement are subsequent events, they do not give rise to a cause of action to seek divorce. He contends that the facts should precede the intiation of the proceedings and should form part of the cause of action. In the very nature of things, the allegations made subsequent to the filing of the O. P. and the subsequent events cannot be taken into consideration. They cannot be a ground for holding that the wife is guilty of cruelty. He also contends that as regards the allegations made in the written statement or counter, unless a specific issue is framed as to whether those allegations would amount to cruelty or not, those allegations by themselves cannot justify a decree for divorce. He contends that there should be evidence on record to show that the husband felt that these allegations have mentally affected him and that he felt that he was treated cruelly. He placed reliance upon a number of decisions to show that allegations in a counter and written statement cannot be the basis for granting a decree for divorce.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent-husband, Mr. Harnath contends that this is an unfortunate case where from the time of marriage, the husband was being illtreated, humiliated and subjected to all sorts of cruelty by the wife. The wife s behaviour and cruelty to the husband appear to stem out of her economically superior position and her being far senior to the husband in age. He contends that the evidence on record fully establishes the various instances of humiliation and cruel treatment. He further contends that the subsequent conduct and the wild, baseless and scandalous allegations made in the written statement which now stand unproved by themselves constitute cruelty to the husband and such false and malicious allegations which are not substantiated would ipso facto entitle the husband to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Mr. Haranath contends that the evidence on record establishes that the parties are living separately from April, 1982 and there is absolutely no possibility of their living together. When there is no scope for reconciliation and their coming together, it is futile on the part of the wife to file this appeal and try to compel the husband to live with her. Judged from a broad human angle on the facts of the case, their living together would be nothing short of virtual hell on earth. The court exercising matrimonial jurisdiction should take a comprehensive view of things and on the facts of the case, the decree for divorce has necessarily to be confirmed.

( 5 ) THE points for co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document