Oral Judgment

D.S.R. Varma, J

1. Heard both sides.

2. This appeal is preferred by the husband challenging the order and decree, passed in F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2008 on the file of Family Court, Nellore (H.M.O.P.No.93 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore).

3. The appellant is the husband of the respondent.

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

5. The wife was the petitioner before the Family Court. She filed the petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent therein by granting a decree of divorce.

6. The Court below, after going into the merits of the case and also basing on the evidence, both oral and documentary, on record, granted the decree of divorce.

7. In the said O.P., the averments of the wife are that her marriage with the husband was solemnised in the year 1990 and for a couple of years they lived happily, but over a period of time, the husband was addicted to vices like alcoholism and drugs and in such mental and physical state, he was abusing her in filthy language and was beating her rudely, as a result of which, she was apprehending danger at his hands. It has been further stated that the husband was moving with people of low class in the state of drunkenness and was staying in hotels with such people causing nuisance to the inmates of the hotels. Therefore, in nutshell, it was the cruelty in different ways that was shown as the reason for seeking the decree of divorce.

8. The husband filed the counter wherein, while denying the allegations made in the petition, it has been stated that the wife was not amicable to him and to his parents and because of the illegal advice of her parents, she used to pick up quarrels frequently; that not stopping there, she used to insist on them to dispose of the properties, as a result of which, the house property also was disposed of; that later, she got some properties purchased in her name and taking advantage of the situation, she started harassing and neglected him. Further, it was the specific averment of the husband that he was put to mental agony at the instance of the wife and that it was he who, in fact, was necked out of the house, but the wife started making propaganda that he was a drunkard and a drug addict and eventually, he prayed the Court below that the O.P. be dismissed.

9. On the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following points for determination:

“1. Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty, thereby entitling her to get divorce as prayed for?

2. To what relief?”

10. In order to substantiate her case, the wife got examined as P.W-1 and a neighbour as P.W-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. The husband examined himself as R.W-1 and no documentary evidence was marked on his behalf.

11. Both the wife and the husband had spoken to what has been stated in their respective pleadings in the petition and the counter. However, it is very important to note the admission of the husband, who was examined as R.W-1, that his father-in-law was paying the bills of the hotels for his stay and other purposes.

12. In normal course, that itself may not be a sufficient ground to grant a decree of divorce unless and until the cruelty is established beyond doubt.

13. It is settled law that cruelty sometimes may also be established by leading evidence, both oral and documentary. In the instant case, it is Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are the bill and the certificate, respectively, issued by a hotel by name D.R.Uttama.

14. It is to be seen that the husband admitted the said two documents under Exs.A-1 and A-2. As a consequence of admission, what is obvious is that the husband was staying in hotels without paying money and the bills raised by the hotels were being paid by his father-in-law. This shows the conduct of the husband, which, in other words shows the irrespon