The mere filing of complaints does not constitute evidence of cruelty or grounds for marriage dissolution under the Hindu Marriage Act.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.193 of 2014 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN There is no representation on behalf of the appellant.

2. Yesterday, Sri S.Raghuram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, informed the Court that the respondent is not in touch with him.

3. We have perused the record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.05.2014 in O.P. No. 526 of 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, the appellant/husband has preferred the present appeal.

5. The appellant/husband filed O.P. No. 526 of 2011 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was performed on 14.11.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage and the marriage was consummated. However, no children were born out of the wedlock. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties. The appellant contended that the respondent subjected him to cruelty and also deserted him. He further alleged that she implicated him in a false case for the offence under Sections 498-A of IPC. She also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act , 2005. To prove cruelty and desertion, the appellant examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex.P2 – Marriage photographs; Ex.P3 – Certified copy of FIR dated 02.09.2010; Ex.P4 – Certified copy of DVC case dated 11.02.2011; and Ex.P5 – Xerox copy of the list of articles. In defence, the respondent examined herself as RW-1 and also examined her brother, Sri B. Rama Rao, as RW-2. Upon consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 31.05.2014, dismissed the application.

6. The learned Family Court considered the evidence of the appellant (PW-1), particularly his cross-examination. During cross-examination, the appellant (PW-1) admitted that one Smt. Urmila Banam, a social worker, came to his house at the instance of the respondent for mediation prior to the filing of the said DVC. Thus, it is evident that the respondent made efforts to join the company of the appellant and never deserted him. The learned Family Court also took note of the admission made by the appellant (PW-1) that Mr. Pasham Surender, Ex-Corporator, had also intervened in the matter at his instance. Even then, no settlement was arrived at between the parties. On consideration of the said evidence, in paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, the learned trial Court recorded a specific finding that the appellant failed to prove cruelty as well as desertion.

7. It is apt to note that mere lodging of a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and filing an application under Section 12 of the DVC Act by the respondent/wife does not amount to cruelty. On mere assumptions and allegations, the Family Court cannot dissolve the marriage between the parties. The parties are required to plead and establish cruelty or desertion by producing reliable evidence.

8. In the present case, except examining himself as PW-1 and filing Ex.P2 – Marriage Photographs, Ex.P3 – Certified Copy of FIR dated 02.09.2010, Ex.P4 – Certified Copy of DVC Case dated

11.02.2011, and Ex.P5 – Xerox Copy of the List of Articles, the appellant did not examine any other witness, including neighbours or family members of the aforesaid mediators. Thus, upon consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court rightly dismissed O.P. No.526 of 2011 filed by the appellant. The impugned order is reasoned and well-founded. The appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the same.

9. Accordingly, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.