IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by court’s verdict if parties are not willing.
(2) Burden of Proof – Proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are essentially of civil nature and satisfaction must be on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri Rama Rao Kochiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal was filed by the wife challenging the decree of divorce dated 08.05.2006, in H.M.O.P.No.225 of 2001 (HMOP), passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (the Trial court) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (H.M. Act).

I. Facts:

3. The respondent-husband filed the H.M.O.P pleading inter alia that the appellant is his legally wedded wife. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites, caste and custom on 13.08.1994 at Bapatla in Arts and Science College Premises. He was working as Lecturer in Viswam Coaching Centre, Thirupati. The wife had completed graduation and was staying with her parents. The marriage was without any dowry. Three days after the marriage, the wife told that the marriage was against her wish and will. She started behaving abnormally. After few days of marriage on the pretext to attend duty she went back to Tirupati. For short spells she stayed in the matrimonial home, but her behaviour caused frustration and mental agony to the husband. There was no cohabitation between them. The wife did not attend even the normal works as wife. The husband further narrated many incidents to point out his mental agony and the cruelty by the wife. The mediations, held by the elders failed, as she demanded huge amount of money. Consequently, he had no option but to take divorce for which H.M.O.P was filed.

4. The wife filed counter and contested the HMOP. She denied the averments of cruelty and any behaviour amounting to cruelty. She pleaded taking dowry by the husband and its more demand on number of occasions. She denied that the marriage was not consummated. She submitted that they were leading matrimonial life as wife and husband. She was discharging her duties as house wife, besides doing job. She pleaded harassment and ill-treatment by the husband. She admitted that the mediations, took place and she also sent a letter/notice dated 01.01.2001, calling upon the husband to allow her to join to lead matrimonial life, which was replied by notice dated 02.03.2001 with false averments. She pleaded that the name of one Bobba Venkata Ramana was introduced with intention to assassinate her character and to make out a case of cruelty towards the husband. She submitted that she was always willing and ready to lead the matrimonial life and prayed for dismissal of the HMOP.

5. In support of their respective pleadings, the parties led evidences. The husband examined himself as P.W.1. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on his behalf. The wife examined herself as R.W.1 and two other witnesses as R.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on her behalf.

II. Judgment of the Learned Trial Court:-

6. The learned Trial Court framed the following points for determination:

(i) “Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for?

(ii) If so, what?”

7. The learned Trial Court recorded that the relationship between the parties was beyond melting point which could not be got down by any means. The husband levelled allegations of wife’s relationship with one B. Venkata Ramana, but failed to prove. So, even if the court directed the parties to live together and lead matrimonial life that would cause embarrassment to the parties. In view of the filing of the criminal case under Section 498-A IPC by the wife against the husband and his parents, in which there was arrest, and remand to the judicial custody and they had to obtain bail, there was no chance for the parties to live together happily. The acquittal of the husband and his parents as the prosecution failed to prove the charges, amounted to mental cruelty. Thus, considered the learned Trial court granted divorce and allowed HMOP.

III. Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant:-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decree of divorce cannot be sustained. The g