The appellant's allegations of cruelty were not substantiated by reliable evidence, and the court emphasized that mere claims are insufficient for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases and Sri G. Udaya Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. In both the Appeals, the appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. Their marriage was performed on 05.12.1996 as per Hindu rites and customs and it is an arranged marriage.

3. Out of their lawful wedlock, they were blessed with three children i.e., T. Sai Abhishek born on 25.10.1997 and Anuvamshika born on 22.11.1998 and Alaknanda Devi born on 05.08.2001.

4. The appellant-husband filed petition under Section 13 (1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide O.P.No.1189/2010 against the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The respondent-wife filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide O.P.No.191 of 2011 against the appellant-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-wife filed a petition vide O.P.No.408 of 2011 against the appellant-husband seeking custody of the children and also for visitation rights.

5. Vide common order, dated 24.10.2014, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court at Huyderabad dismissed O.P.No.1189/2010 filed by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed O.P.No.191/2011 filed by the respondent-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant-husband preferred the present appeals. Vide the said common order, learned Family Court partly allowed O.P.No.408 of 2011 filed by wife, granting visitation rights. However, no appeal is preferred against the said order.

6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant–husband as well as respondent-wife that children became major and they are living with the appellant-father. Out of them one daughter and son are doctors (BDS) and another doctor is electrical engineer.

7. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, the appellant- husband himself examined as PW1, his mother as PW2 and neighbor as PW3. The appellant-husband filed Exs.P1 to P16 documents. To disprove the same, the respondent-wife examined herself as RW1, but she did not file any documents. On consideration of the said evidence, the learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.191/2011 and dismissed O.P.No.1189/2010.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband contended that the appellant-husband has not taken any dowry at the time of marriage. In fact he only gifted gold jewellery of 2 ½ thulas towards managala sutram and also 2 ½ tulas towards gold mangala suthram chain at the time of marriage to the respondent. The parents of the respondent have no issues except the respondent as their adopted daughter. Therefore, the parents of the respondent have requested the appellant to stay with them as illatom son-in-law after marriage. The parents of the respondent-wife are distant relatives of the appellant- husband and they are old persons and thus, the appellant agreed for the request of the parents of the respondent. There were some tenants in the house of the parents of the respondent and they have not vacated even after one year of marriage of the appellant and respondent.

9. It is further contended by the appellant that the appellant and respondent stayed at Golnaka, Tilaknagar for a period of 11 months after marriage. They were blessed with aforesaid three children. After first delivery of the child, the appellant and respondent shifted to the parents’ house of the respondent. The appellant incurred pre and post d