The court established that allegations of adultery require strong, credible evidence to substantiate claims in divorce proceedings, emphasizing legal standards for proving cruelty and the implications of divorce on personal rights.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

Introductory:-

[i] This is an appeal directed against the Orders dated 15.04.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No.749 of 2007. [ii] Respondent No.1 is the husband of the appellant. He has filed O.P.No.749 of 2007 with a prayer for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the 1^st respondent, invoking the grounds under Section13 (1)(i)(a) and (b) of Hindu Marriage Act. The 2^nd respondent is shown alleging that he is having illicit intimacy with the appellant (wife).

[iii] The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam under the orders and decree dated 15.04.2010 allowed the petition filed by the husband, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the 1^st respondent/husband.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree and order, present appeal is filed.

3. Before the Family Court, the 1 respondent herein is the petitioner, the appellant is the 1^st respondent and the 2^nd respondent herein is the 2^nd respondent. Since the 1^st respondent/husband died during the pendency of the rd appeal, 3^rd respondent was allowed to come on record as legal representative of st rd st 1^st respondent. The 3 respondent is the daughter of the appellant and the 1^st respondent.

4. The 3^rd respondent herein, who is the daughter of the 1^st respondent and the appellant, appeared through an advocate but the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the appellant and the 3^rd respondent are living together and the 3^rd respondent has no grievance, even if the appeal is allowed.

5. This is a case where the husband sought and got a decree of divorce. The wife questioned the same before this Appellate Court, and during the pendency of the appeal, husband expired. The 3^rd respondent came on record in the capacity of legal representative of the 1^st respondent.

6. It is also relevant to note that the appellant/wife along with the 3^rd respondent herein, filed O.P. No.969 of 2007 under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking maintenance, which was disposed of together with the present case. By the common order dated 15.04.2010, both the petition for maintenance as well as the present case seeking dissolution of marriage were allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

Case of the 1^st respondent/Husband:-

7. [i] Marriage between the appellant and the 1^st respondent has taken place on 09.03.1990 as per the Hindu rites and customs, and the marriage was consummated. During their wed lock, the 3 respondent/appellant was born. Since the couple planned to have gap for the second issue, they stayed away th from sexual life, but it was found that the appellant was carrying 5 month pregnancy. Then the couple opted for miscarriage. However, the husband was suspicious about the pregnancy, which contributed for mental and physical distance and differences. They lived separately under one roof.

[ii] The husband suffered with paralysis and heart ailment and he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He has undergone heart surgery in August, 1994. Whereas the wife, instead of caring her husband, searched out for her fun and frequently visiting her parents house. Her conduct was doubtful, as she used to go to the terrace at night time, after bolting the doors while the husband was sleeping. She has even informed him that she was not interested in marrying him and has consented to the marriage at the instance of her parents. There was a quarrel on 23.11.1995, she has even beat her husband and thereafter left the matrimonial home.

[iii] Wife filed M.C.No.189 of 1999, which was allowed granting of ma