The burden of proof rests on the husband to substantiate claims of cruelty for dissolution of marriage; mere allegations without reliable evidence are insufficient.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. Jaya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Thummaraju Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.10.2015 in F.C.O.P. No.51 of 2013, passed by learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

3. The appellant herein is the husband and respondent herein is the wife. Their marriage was performed on 15.02.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. Out of their wed-lock they were blessed with a female child on 11.02.2011.

4. The appellant-husband filed the aforesaid O.P. under Section 13 (1) (a) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty and unsoundness of mind. According to him, the respondent used to abuse the appellant and beat him in presence of friends, parents and colleagues. She has also abused him in unparliamentarily language and she has implicated the appellant in a criminal case, she has also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance. She has also tried to kidnap the appellant with the help of her 100 family members. She has also committed theft of bike. She used to maintain an illicit relation with the 3^rd person. Thus, the respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty.

5. The respondent filed the counter denying the said allegations. It is specifically contended by her that she never abused or beat the appellant as alleged. She never tried to kidnap the appellant with the help of her family members or committed theft of bike as alleged by the appellant. She never maintained illicit relation as alleged by the appellant. To get rid of the respondent, the appellant made the said allegations falsely. By maintaining illicit relation with one Kondi Nalini, the appellant sought divorce. Therefore, she has lodged a complaint against the appellant, his mother and the said Nalini for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Appellant failed to maintain her and her daughter, therefore, she has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, filing the aforesaid complaint on the appellant does not amount to cruelty.

6. To prove the said cruelty, the appellant examined himself as PW1, his mother as PW2 and neighbours as PWs 3 and 4. He has filed Ex.A1 - Photo, Ex.A2 – office copy of legal notice dated 18.01.2013 and Ex.A3 – postal receipt. To disprove the said cruelty, the respondent examined herself as RW1, but did not exhibit any documents on her behalf. On consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P filed by the appellant-husband. Challenging the same, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that learned Family Court did not consider the depositions of PWs 1 to 4 and the fact that the respondent implicated the appellant in a criminal case and that she has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration on the aforesaid aspects. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita , (2014) 16 SCC 34 , Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi , (2014) 7 SCC 640 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 .

8. Whereas, learned counsel for the respon