A spouse alleging cruelty must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims, and judicial separation may be upheld over divorce when reconciliation remains a possibility.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Sri Krishna Maragani, learned counsel, representing Sri P.V. Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the appellant/wife in FCA No.411 of 2012 and respondent in FCA No.365 of 2012, Sri S. Raghuram, learned counsel representing Smt. K.Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent in FCA No.411 of 2012 and appellant in FCA No.365 of 2012.

(For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife and the husband’)

2. Sri S.Raghuram, learned counsel appearing for the husband, would submit that the husband is not in touch with him and he has no instructions from the husband.

3. Husband has filed an application vide O.P.No.528 of 2008 under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1955’) against the wife before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Vide impugned order, dated 21.11.2012, learned Judge, Family Court granted judicial separation for a period of one year, instead of decree of divorce.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, both the wife and the husband preferred the present appeals.

5. Husband has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.528 of 2008 against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty contending as follows:-

i. Their marriage was performed on 02.06.1991 at Yerraguntla Village, Kadapa District, as per the Hindu rites and customs.

ii. It is an arranged marriage.

iii. They were blessed with two male children i.e. Prashanth Sagar Reddy born on 09.11.1992 and Nishanth Sagar Reddy born on 26.01.1996 respectively out of their lawful wedlock.

iv. At the time of marriage, husband was working at Madras as he was engineering graduate.

v. She joined him at Madras where they lived upto 17.05.1995.

vi. Thereafter, he was transferred to Hyderabad and then to Kottayam, Kerala.

vii. During their stay at Kottayam, there were disputes between them. The wife, who acquainted to city lifestyle at Hyderabad, did not like to live with the husband at Kottayam. During his stay at Kottayam, he faced hardship with patience and tolerance.

viii. Thereafter, he was transferred to Hyderabad on 20.02.2020 and lived at Alakapuri, Hyderabad, in a premises let out by his employer, which was subsequently purchased by him out of his savings and by obtaining loan.

ix. In the year 1997, there was change in her behavior for which husband requested wife to cooperate with him by taking medical advice and treatment if necessary.

x. In the year 1997, he helped to the wife of his close friend who was away from home, and gave her medicine as she was suffering from high fever. On coming to know the same, the wife attributed illicit relation to him with his friend’s wife.

xi. When his friend wanted to lodge a complaint against his wife with police, she tendered apology to his friend.

xii. He, being a Civil Engineer, is required to be present at sites till late nights, for which she used to ask him that with which woman he slept on that particular day. He used to explain her that his work demands his presence at the site and he cannot abandon his work in the middle. But she did not heed his words and continued to harass him.

xiii. On the pretext of husband coming late to the house, she did not serve food to him.

xiv. Once, while he was cooking for himself and the children in the morning hours, she suddenly beat him with a flower vase and caused him bleeding injury on his head. He was taken to Susheela Hospital, at Ramakrishnapuram by his elder son and was in the hospital for three days. During that period,