The court established that allegations of cruelty must be supported by evidence, and mere filing of complaints does not inherently constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

Heard Smt. K. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act assailing the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.315 of 2004 filed under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.

3. Vide the said order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/husband. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner married the respondent on 03.05.1990 as per the Hindu Customs and Rites. After the marriage, they both started living together in the petitioner's father's own house at H.No.19-115, Gautham Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, along with the parents and brothers of the petitioner, which is a joint family. The petitioner is working as an Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk at South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The respondent’s parents live at Marredpally, Secunderabad, and the respondent used to visit her parents’ house very frequently and used to stay there for weeks together without any concern for the petitioner right from the beginning of marital life.

5(i) The petitioner was blessed with a daughter by name Sindhu Bharathi on 26-05-1991. After the birth of Sindhu Bharathi, the respondent started demanding the petitioner’s separation from the petitioner's parents and to live in a separate house, but the petitioner did not agree to break down the joint family, he being the eldest son. The respondent left the home in May, 1992, and never returned, in spite of the petitioner’s visit to their house, requesting her to join. The respondent used to provoke the petitioner by saying that he is a parasite on his parents and, does not have the guts to be independent and that he does not have self-respect and dignity. So, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 29.09.1993 calling upon the respondent to join him along with the child. Instead of complying with the notice, the respondent got issued a reply notice dated 11.10.1993, demanding a separate house to join back with all false allegations.

5(ii) The attempts made by the petitioner’s Advocates of the in October 1993 for compromise failed since the respondent was not even willing to live in a separate house near to the house of petitioner’s parents. The relationship got further badly strained by the indifferent attitude shown by the respondent when the father of the petitioner died in June 1994. Though the respondent was informed, she did not bother to visit and console the petitioner. She did not even turn up on the 3^rd and 10^th day ceremony despite several requests made by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner’s father felt very bad when the respondent avoided attending the marriage of the petitioner's younger sister in February 1993. In July 1994, the petitioner visited the respondent’s house and requested her to join him in a separate house, but she bluntly refused and insulted the petitioner for not getting a share in the property before the death of the petitioner's father. The respondent showed the utmost cruelty and made the life of the petitioner miserable by creating a mental torture. The respondent is responsible for all the disturbances in the life of the petitioner and his family members. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner underwent the humiliation of loneliness and insult. At this point, a friendship happened between the petitioner and one lady by name Mrs. Aruna, who is a divorcee. Due to their physical relationship, Mrs. Aruna gave birth to a daughter named Sai Pranathi. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and behaved cruelly with the peti