Oral Common Judgment: (D.S.R. Varma, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. Since both these appeals are interrelated and arise out of the common order and decrees, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appeals C.M.A.No.3773 of 2004 and A.S.No.3602 of 2004 are directed against the common order and decrees, dated 18-08-2004, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.764 of 2002 and O.S.No.74 of 2002, respectively.

4. By the impugned common order, the Court below dismissed O.P.No.764 of 2002, filed by the husband, seeking to grant a decree of divorce, and decreed the suit O.S.No.74 of 2002, filed by the wife, in part directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to the wife from the date of filing of the suit.

5. Appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife in both the appeals.

6. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the appellant and the respondent will be referred to as “the husband” and “the wife”, respectively.

7. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the marriage was performed between the parties on 22.06.1997 and undisputedly they stayed together for three days and that after some gap (Aashada Masam), they stayed for another four days. It is the chief averment of the husband in the O.P., that the marriage was not consummated either in the first spell or in the second spell of their stay.

8. This Court, initially, by order, dated 25.10.2004, granted interim stay of execution of the decree, dated 18.08.2004, in O.S.No.74 of 2002, on condition of the husband paying a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to the wife, in A.S.M.P.No.13976 of 2004, which came to be challenged by way of S.L.P.No.1797 of 2005 before the apex Court and Their Lordships were pleased to dispose of the matter with a direction to this Court to dispose of the main matter i.e., A.S.No.3602 of 2004, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months, inasmuch, as the S.L.P., has been filed challenging the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, the appeal A.S.No.3602 of 2004 is before us now. Similarly, the appeal C.M.A.No.3773 of 2004 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court dismissing the petition O.P.No.764 of 2002, filed by the husband for divorce.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the husband raised primarily three contentions:

Firstly, the marriage had not been consummated, secondly, the wife filed criminal complaints against all the family members of the husband, i.e., the husband, his parents, brother and sister, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and consequent thereto, all of them were arrested and were imprisoned for some time. Hence, filing of the said criminal cases amounts to `cruelty’ on the part of the wife and thirdly, the wife deserted the husband.

10. The Court below, having appreciated the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, held that there were no valid reasons to grant decree for divorce; that non consummation was not established; that filing of criminal cases is not a ground for granting divorce; that the husband failed to establish desertion on the part of the wife and dismissed the O.P. As regards the suit O.S.No.74 of 2002, the same was decreed granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife from the date of filing of the suit.

11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the wife contends that when non-consummation and desertion, as alleged, were not established, no decree can be passed in favour of the husband granting divorce. He further contends that filing of criminal cases by itself cannot be treated as a ground for granting divorce.

12. In this connection, it is to be seen that, no doubt, in the O.P., filed by the husband, a specific ground had been taken that there was no consummation on either of the two