* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

*THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

+C.M.A.No.651 OF 2007

% 27.06.2024

#Tadepalli Venkata Ramesh, S/o.

T. Dharma Rao, Kendriya

Vidyalaya, Begumpet,

Hyderabad

……Appellant

And:

$ Immidisetty Anitha, D/o. Sri I.

Subba Rao, R/o. J.

Panguluru Mandalam,

Prakasham District.

….Respondent.

!Counsel for the appellant : Sri V. Raghu

^Counsel for the respondent : Sri B. Venkatesh Nayak

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: 1 2019(4) ALT 162 (DB)

2.1985 SCC OnLine AP 98

3.2013 Supreme (Online) (KER) 8607

4.(2017) 8 SCC 746

5.(2023) 14 SCC 231

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI * * * *

C.M.A.No.651 OF 2007 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.06.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA,J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA C.M.A.No.651 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:

Heard Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Venkatesh Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent who filed O.P.No.444 of 2000 in the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Court at Vijayawada seeking to dissolve the marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955). The marriage was solemnized on 29.08.1996 as per the caste custom and usage of both the parties. They were blessed with a female child. As per the appellant’s pleadings, the wife went to her parents’ house along with child in the year 1997 and since then she did not join the appellant except on one occasion on 31.08.1998. He pleaded mental agony, cruelty and that the wife did not join the company of the husband.

3. The respondent filed the counter denying the averments of the petition except the relationship between both parties. She pleaded the appellant’s intimacy with his colleague and his frequent visits. However, she pleaded that she was not willing for divorce and she was ready to join the husband. Any mental and physical cruelty by her was denied.

4. The appellant filed the rejoinder and denied any illegal intimacy with his colleague. The allegations made by the wife were said to be unfounded and intended to defame the husband, amounting to character assassination.

5. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and his friend L. Lakshmana Rao as P.W.2. C. Suresh, the Assistant Director, F.S.L, Hyderabad was examined as P.W.3. He also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.31 in his evidence.

6. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1, her father as R.W.2 and one P. Subba Rao as R.W.3. She also got marked Exs.B.1 to B.28.

7. The detailed description of those documents is mentioned under the judgment under appeal, in the appendix of evidence.

8. The learned Family Court framed the point for determination:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955?”.

9. Referring to the evidence on record, finding was recorded that the behavior of the appellant with his colleague, caused mental agony to the respondent. The appellant could not take advantage of his own wrong and seek the relief of dissolution of marriage. It was recorded that the appellant moved with his colleague and there was long association objectionable in nature. The appellant failed to prove that the wife treated him with cruelty. So he was not entitled for dissolution of marriage. The O.P.No.444 of 2000 was dismissed by the judgment dated

27.07.2007.

10. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree the present appeal has been filed by the husband.

11. During pendency of the appeal, the parties settle