IMPORTANT POINT
Decree for divorce cannot be granted in haste.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—This appeal demonstrates a totally lopsided approach on the part of the Family Court, Secunderabad, in an OP filed by the respondent herein, for divorce, against the appellant.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place, on 25.5.1998, at Hyderabad. Stating that the appellant is not co-operating with him in the family life and that various acts and omissions on her part would constitute cruelty, the respondent filed O.P. No. 89 of 2001 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The OP was opposed by the appellant. She stated that ever since the marriage, not only the respondent, but also her family members, including his sisters, used to harass her. She has enlisted the instances of harassment said to have been caused to her. She further stated that she was forced to swallow sleeping pills, and on another occasion, she was forced to drink dettol, and that the respondent has driven her out from the matrimonial house.

3. On her part, the appellant filed OP No. 58 of 2002, under Section 9 of the Act, against the respondent, for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Through a common judgment, dated 16.11.2002, the trial Court passed a decree of divorce in OP No.89 of 2001 and dismissed OP No.58 of 2002. This appeal is filed against the decree of divorce granted by the trial Court.

5. The appellant contends that there was absolutely no evidence whatever, except the self-serving statement of the appellant and that the trial Court has placed the burden on every aspect upon her, i.e. the appellant and passed the decree of divorce.

6. On behalf of the respondent, it is argued that the trial Court has taken into account, the relevant facts, applied the precedents that govern the situation and passed the decree. It is urged that the matter does not warrant any interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

(i) “Whether the petitioner in OP No.89 of 2001 established cruelty towards him by the respondent?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce?

(iii) Whether the respondent in OP No.58 of 2002 is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights?”

9. The respondent deposed as PWl and filed Exs. Al to A10. The appellant deposed as RW1 and filed Exs. B1 and B2.

10. A perusal of the OP filed by the respondent discloses that his complaint was mostly about the alleged non-cooperation on the part of the appellant in leading the family life. Except making vague and general allegations, he did not mention anything specific. He has also stated that the appellant was not conceiving, in spite of various medical tests and treatments. Even if those contentions or allegations are taken as true, one just cannot arrive at the conclusion that there was any cruelty on the part of the appellant. The family of the respondent comprised of himself, his parents and the respondent. It was alleged that his sisters and brothers-in-law also used to frequently visit his house. In case there was any act of cruelty on the part of the appellant, the respondent could have examined anyone of his family members or the neighbours. Except the deposition of the respondent, there was no other oral evidence. The documentary evidence adduced by him comprised of the prescriptions for the treatment of the appellant. The documents cannot be said to be of any relevance to the ground of cruelty pleaded by the respondent.

11. The appellant deposed as RW1 and narrated her pain and suffering in the hands of respondent and other family members. Ex.B1 is a letter issued by the Dalitha Jathiya Sangam of the area in which the parties herein were living. A perusal of the same discloses that the respondent did not evince any interest for resolution of the disputes and he walked out of the meeting by stating that