* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA

GUNARANJAN

+ C.M.A.No.693 OF 2006

% 07.05.2025 # M. Anuradha

……Appellant

And:

$ Makkina Srinivasa Rao

….Respondent.

!Counsel for the appellant : Sri Rama Rao Kochiri

^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1607 2.2024 SCC OnLine AP 4883

3.2023 SC OnLine AP 1251

4.AIR 2005 Orissa 3

5.AIR 2002 Rajashthan 169 6.AIR 2003 Allahabad 214

7.AIR 2006 AP 65

8.AIR 1975 SC 1534 9.(2006) 4 SCC 558

10.(2020) 18 SCC 247

11.(2002) SCC 73

12.(2002) 2 SCC 85 13.(2014) 16 SCC 34 14.(2006) 4 SCC 558 15.(2002) 2 SCC 73 16.(2007) 4 SCC 511 17.(2002) 5 SCC 706 18. (2014) 16 SCC 34

19.2013 (3) ALD 11 (SC)

20. 2014 (6) ALD 187 (SC) 21. 2001(6) ALT 350 (D.B)

22.AIR 1975 SC 1534

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * *

C.M.A.No.693 OF 2006 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:07.05.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

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

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

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _______________________

CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN C.M.A.No.693 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: per the Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:

1. Heard Sri Rama Rao Kochiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal was filed by the wife challenging the decree of divorce dated 08.05.2006, in H.M.O.P.No.225 of 2001 (HMOP), passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (the Trial court) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (H.M.Act).

I. FACTS:

3. The respondent-husband filed the H.M.O.P pleading inter alia that the appellant is his legally wedded wife. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites, caste and custom on 13.08.1994 at Bapatla in Arts and Science College Premises. He was working as Lecturer in Viswam Coaching Centre, Thirupati. The wife had completed graduation and was staying with her parents. The marriage was without any dowry. Three days after the marriage, the wife told that the marriage was against her wish and will. She started behaving abnormally. After few days of marriage on the pretext to attend duty she went back to Tirupati. For short spells she stayed in the matrimonial home, but her behaviour caused frustration and mental agony to the husband. There was no cohabitation between them. The wife did not attend even the normal works as wife. The husband further narrated many incidents to point out his mental agony and the cruelty by the wife. The mediations, held by the elders failed, as she demanded huge amount of money. Consequently, he had no option but to take divorce for which H.M.O.P was filed.

4. The wife filed counter and contested the HMOP. She denied the averments of cruelty and any behaviour amounting to cruelty. She pleaded taking dowry by the husband and its more demand on number of occasions. She denied that the marriage was not consummated. She submitted that they were leading matrimonial life as wife and husband. She was discharging her duties as house wife, besides doing job. She pleaded harassment and ill- treatment by the husband. She admitted that the mediations, took place and she also sent a letter/notice dated 01.01.2001, calling upon the husband to allow her to join to lead matrimonial life, which was replied by notice dated 02.03.2001 with false averments. She pleaded that the name of one Bobba Venkata Ramana was introduced with intention to assassinate her character and to make out a case of cruelty towards the husband. She submitted that she was always willing and ready to lead the matrimonial life and prayed for dismissal of the HMOP.

5. In support of their respective plead