Divorce is justified on grounds of cruelty and desertion when there is evidence of non-consummation of marriage and the spouse abandons the matrimonial home without reasonable cause or effort to reconcile.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent.

2. Appellant is the husband. Respondent is the wife.

3. Respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage vide F.C.O.P.no.1806 of 2014 against appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

4. Appellant has filed counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Vide impugned order dated 15.05.2017, learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion by granting decree of divorce; and dismissed the counter-claim filed by the appellant/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Challenging the said order, appellant/husband preferred the present appeals.

6. Respondent/Wife has filed aforesaid O.P.No.1806 of 2014 against appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion contending as follows:

i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 13.02.2011 in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash towards dowry and also presented household articles, including electronic items, worth Rs.4,00,000/-.

ii) After the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and began her marital life. They lived happily for a few days. Thereafter, the respondent’s mother started harassing and ill- treating the petitioner on petty issues. The respondent, at the instigation of his mother, also began to harass the petitioner and demanded additional dowry. When the petitioner refused to meet these demands, the respondent subjected her to physical abuse.

iii) The respondent also failed to maintain conjugal relations with the petitioner. On 18.05.2012, the respondent deserted the petitioner without any intimation, leaving behind all his belongings. The petitioner made several attempts to contact the respondent, but he showed no interest in continuing the marital relationship.

iv) As all reconciliation efforts failed, the petitioner proposed dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. The respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and issued a cheque bearing No.0007488 dated 18.04.2013, drawn on ICICI Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad. Subsequently, the respondent took back the said cheque and instead paid Rs.18,80,000/- through bank transfer, promising to pay the remaining balance within a short period.

v) Although a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed, the respondent failed to appear and proceed with the matter.

7. The respondent filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition and also made a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights, contending as follows:

i) After the marriage, the petitioner lived with him for hardly seven days, namely: two days immediately after the marriage, one day during their housewarming ceremony, one day when his father expired, and three days when he brought his mother to stay with them after his father’s death. Therefore, the question of the respondent or his mother harassing the petitioner does not arise.

ii) The respondent further stated that, when his mother was staying with them, the petitioner used to ill-treat her on the ground that she was uneducated. He submitted that his parents never objected to or complained about the petitioner.

iii) The respondent also contended that, initially, the petitioner was frigid, due to which conjugal life could not be continued for a few days; however, they later resumed their conjugal relationship. He further alleged that the petitioner refused to accompany him when his mother was ill and that she was under the bad influence of her own mother.

iv