Cruelty in marriage includes mental cruelty and can justify divorce when substantiated by evidence, as seen in the appellant's case against the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Grandhi Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 29.12.2017 in O.P.No.1151 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, the appellant-husband preferred the present appeal. The appellant-husband filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1151 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, contending as follows;

(i) The appellant marriage with the respondent was performed on 15.05.2011 at Rajdhani Gardens Function Hall, Kothapet, Hyderabad, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and it is an arranged marriage.

(ii) Before the said marriage, the appellant used to stay in U.S.A.

(iii) He married in the year 2003 in India.

(iv) After the marriage, appellant and his first wife left to U.S.A. Later, the appellant was constrained to leave U.S.A. as his mother fell sick.

(v) But unfortunately his first wife who got employed in U.S.A. in a good company, was earning very well, refused to come back to India.

(vi) Ultimately, it led to irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and they sought divorce.

Accordingly, they have obtained divorce with mutual consent on 18.06.2008. Thus, it is appellant's second marriage.

(vii) The appellant explained about his first marriage, divorce obtained to the respondent before marriage and she has accepted.

(viii) Then only, the aforesaid marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2011.

(ix) After the marriage, nuptial ceremony was arranged.

(x) The said nuptial ceremony was a failure as the respondent did not cooperate with the appellant for consummation of the said marriage.

(xi) She avoided the conjugal life on one or other pretext.

(xii) The said fact was brought to the notice of her father.

(xiii) There was no proper cooperation from him and also to the respondent, which led to biological inconvenience to the appellant herein.

(xiv) The basic purpose of marriage has been defeated deliberately by the respondent. The respondent after marriage stayed in the matrimonial home hardly for thirty to forty days.

(xv) She constantly demanded the appellant to leave his parents house and put up separate house.

(xvi) The appellant did not agree for the same.

(xvii) She used to abuse him and his family members in filthy and un-parliamentary language.

(xviii) She is very rigid on her own stand and she doesn't listen to anybody.

(xix) She is a woman with different outlook and her acts are always to defame the appellant and his parents.

(xx) She has a habit of lying for even small things.

(xxi) While she was in the house of the appellant, she always used to either sleep or watch T.V. Thus, she never cooperated with the appellant in leading conjugal life.

(xxii) As per the tradition, a newly wedded bride should not stay in the house of parents-in-law in the Hindu calendar month "Ashadam", therefore, on 26.06.2011 the respondent's father took her to his house.

(xxiii) While going to her house respondent took all her ornaments presented by her father in the marriage along with her belongings.

(xxiv) After completion of Ashadam month, appellant went to her parents' house on 10.08.2011 to bring her back for the Shravanapatti formality.

(xxv) Respondent and her father put forth the illegal demand to the appellant to purchase an independent bungalow or lead a separate life leaving his parents alone.

(xxvi) He tried to convince the respondent and her father that it is not proper for the appellant to leave his old aged parents more particularly his mother who is suffering with serious old age ailments, his father is also a senior advocate and due to ill health of his mother, his father is not practicing seriously.

(xxvii) The said facts were not understood by e