Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16619
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY, JJ
SRI HANCHATE SURESH BABU KADAPA DIST. – Appellant
Versus
SMT. HANCHATE LATHA BHAI ANANTHAPUR DIST. – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 640 OF 2010
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: SANDHYA DEEPTHI MADDALA
Long-term separation can amount to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, justifying a divorce.
Headnote:
Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - [Sections 13(1)(ia), 28] - The court interpreted desertion and mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the petitioner and the significance of long separation as indicative of cruelty, ultimately granting divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed for divorce citing desertion and mental cruelty after the wife left their home multiple times, with the couple living separately for over 24 years. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to the husband's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband established grounds for divorce based on desertion and mental cruelty, countering the trial court's ruling that the wife's actions were justified.
Issues: Whether the husband proved desertion and cruelty to warrant a divorce and if the trial court's judgment should be overturned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that long separation constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner, which was met in this case.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, granting a decree of divorce.
JUDGMENT:
Per the Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:-
Heard Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel representing Sri Murali Krishna for the appellant (husband) and Sri Sandhya Deepthi Maddala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the H.M.Act”) has been filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of petition for divorce vide judgment dated 16.06.2010, passed in O.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, (in short, the Trial Court) filed by the petitioner -husband. O.P was filed under Section 13(1) of the H.M.Act on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty.
3. Henceforth, parties shall be referred as arrayed in O.P.
4. The case of the petitioner (husband) was that the marriage with the respondent had taken place on 17.08.1994 at Sri Ramana Maharshi Asramam, Tadipatri as per Hindu Rites and customs. They lived happily for six months and thereafter the dispute arose. The wife left the matrimonial home and went to her parents house against the wish and will of the husband. Later on panchayat was held but again they started living together. A son and a daughter namely Pavan Sai and Aparna respectively were born. After the birth of the daughter on 21.12.2000, the wife again left the company of the husband with her gold ornaments. On 01.01.2002. The husband was transferred to Proddatur from Simhadripuram on 11.06.2002, the wife and her parents kidnapped the petitioner. A police complaint was lodged in Muddanur P.S against them. Again a panchayat was held in the presence of the prominent persons where the matter was settled and the wife agreed to divorce on payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- but the said amount was not received. The case of the petitioner husband, was that there was desertion by the wife without any cause and also causing mental cruelty.
5. The respondent wife filed counter. She denied the material averments, which were pleaded for divorce. The panchayat proceedings were admitted but any settlement in those proceedings was denied. The wife also sent a legal notice dated 18.03.2006 to the husband that she never agreed for mutual divorce. The averments of desertion and mental cruelty were also denied.
6. The learned trial court framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the petitioner could establish the alleged cruelty caused by the respondent in this case?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of divorce as prayed for?
3. To what relief?”
7. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and one S. Sivaganga Bhai as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. The wife examined herself as R.W.1 and one P. Krishna Murthy as R.W.2. No documentary evidence were marked on her behalf.
8. The learned trial court arrived at the finding that the petitioner failed to establish the cruelty against the wife. It observed that the wife was justified in desertion and that the desertion alone would never come under the definition of cruelty and dismissed the petition for divorce by judgment dated 16.06.2010.
9. The present appeal was referred to the Lok Adalat by order dated 17.03.2017. But the matter was not settled on account of the absence of the parties. Thereafter on 09.07.2024 on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was adjourned to next date to enable them to obtain instructions from the respective parties with respect to the possibility of resolution with the process of mediation at Mediation Centre. On 23.07.2024, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no chance for mediation. The parties were not willing for mediation after the process before the Lok Adalat did not succeed. Matter was heard finally and judgment was reserved.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the wife deserted without any reasonable cause. The parties are living separately since 2000. The son is with the petitioner and the daughter is living with the respondent. There are no
