THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY F.C.A.Nos.35 and 201 of 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent/husband.

2. Heard Sri Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha, learned counsel for the appellant. We have perused the record.

3. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 23.05.2003 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two children i.e., son on 16.02.2005 and daughter on 31.12.2006 out of their lawful wedlock.

4. According to the respondent/husband, appellant maintained illicit relationship with the 2^nd respondent in FCA No.201 of 2025 i.e., Mamidi Gattu and eloped with him. Thus, she has subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. On the said ground, he has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib)

of Hindu Marriage Act vide O.P.No.31 of 2013 seeking dissolution of marriage. The appellant/wife has filed O.P.No.19 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Vide order dated 09.08.2014, learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda allowed O.P.No.31 of 2013 filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Challenging the said order, F.C.A.No.201 of 2015 is filed by the appellant/wife.

6. Likewise, learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, dismissed O.P.No.19 of 2013 filed by the appellant/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, wife preferred F.C.A No.35 of 2015.

7. As discussed supra, according to the respondent/husband, appellant/wife maintained illicit relationship with the 2^nd respondent and deserted him. She had also lodged a complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 against him for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. She has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance vide M.C.No.1 of 2013. Therefore, according to the 1^st respondent/husband, appellant subjected him to cruelty and deserted him.

8. Respondent/wife filed counter opposing the said application i.e., in O.P.No.31 of 2013 contending that the respondent/husband filed aforesaid application only to get rid of her. He has demanded additional dowry. He has harassed her and her children. Her parents paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the month of February, 2012. Therefore, she has filed complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 with the Women Police Station, Nalgonda. He failed to maintain her and her children. Therefore, she has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The same does not amount to cruelty. In fact, he has harassed her mentally and physically.

9. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, respondent/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and his brother as P.W.2. He has filed Ex.P1/Lagna Koti date 22.05.2003, Ex.P2, copy of ration card and Ex.P3, photo along with CD. To disprove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant examined herself as R.W.1 and a panchayat elder as R.W.2.

Ex.MO1, key chain was also exhibited.

10. As discussed supra, though the 1^st respondent/husband alleged cruelty and desertion against the appellant on the ground that she maintained illicit relationship with the 2^nd respondent, he failed to prove the same. He has not examined any witness to prove the same. He has examined his brother as P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 is not useful to prove the said alleged illicit intimacy of the appellant with the 2^nd respondent. 11. It is also apt to note that lodging complaint against husband by the wife for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not a cruel act. It is the specific allegation of the appellant/wife that the 1^st respondent/husband harassed her both physically and mentally. Panchayat was held. P.W.2 is the panchayat elder.

Thus