IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. Date: 14-03-2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY F.C.A. No.45 of 2011 B e t w e e n: Kasula Manohar. - - - Appellant/ Petitioner. A n d Kasula Meena @ Madhavi. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.45 OF 2011 JUDGEMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) 1. This Family Court Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against order of dismissal dated 04-01-2011, passed in O.P. No.136 of 2008, filed by the applicant under Section 13 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-III-Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short, the learned District Judge), seeking divorce against the respondent on the ground of cruelty. 2. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent in the O.P. No.136 of 2008. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in the petition. 3. The claim of the petitioner is as follows : He married the respondent on 19-12-1996 at Hanmakonda as per their caste customs and during their marital life, they begot three children and only for six (6) months they lived happily as husband and wife and the respondent used to quarrel with him and leave their matrimonial house often and used to stay in the house of her parents for months together and the respondent also used to harass him for the purpose of transferring his property in her name and further she has filed a false case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against him, which circumstances constitute her cruelty and hence the petition is filed. 4. The respondent filed her claim denying the allegations made by the petitioner by and large but admitting her relationship with the respondent and begetting three children during their marital life with a plea to dismiss the petition. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, he got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and on behalf of the respondent nobody was examined and no document was marked. 6. On the basis of the material available on record, it was observed by the lower Court that when the petitioner was cross-examined as PW.1 he admitted that the respondent herself did not go to her parents house for a period of ten years and he also deposed that the respondent used to comment him that he was not educated person and he further deposed that on two or three occasions the respondent beat him whereas, he admitted in his cross-examination that the same allegations were not mentioned in the petition which would disprove the same evidence and further the petitioner in his chief-affidavit alleged that the respondent joined hands with one Bejjanki Anantha Chari husband of her elder sister who was convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and due to the ill-advise of that person she deserted him (the petitioner) and was moving with him (Anantha Chari), but in his cross-examination he admitted that the same fact was not mentioned or noted in his chief affidavit and also in the petition and ultimately with such observations the lower Court dismissed the petition. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner placed satisfactory evidence to uphold his claim but the lower Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and there are good grounds to admit the case. 8. Therefore, now the points for determination are : 1) Whether the petitioner placed sufficient evidence to the effect that the respondent treated him with cruelty and deserted him without any reasonable cause to grant the relief of divorce as prayed for? 2) Whether the lower Court properly appreciated the matter and the judgement passed by it is tenable or not? 9. When the petitioner approached the learned Judge, Family Court, Warangal, for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion he was expected to place good evidence to substantiate his claim. Under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Cruelty is a ground to grant that relief. If what he claims is true probably he would have taken necessary steps to settle the matter before elders about which there is no evidence for which adverse inference is to be drawn. He has failed to establish his bonafides placing satisfactory evidence as a true husband. He can not rely upon any latches on the part of the respondent where as he has to substantiate his claim independently. As observed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Warangal, he gave different versions not mentioned in his petition during his cross-examination and also gave inconsistent versions and thus failed to place satisfactory evidence with regards to the question of cruelty and desertion. No third party was examined as witness to corroborate his evidence of claim. Usually, when a matrimonial dispute took place mediations are conducted to sort out such differences and when there is no evidence about it, an adverse inference is to be drawn. 10. Apparently, absolutely there are no grounds to admit the Appeal and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case no order as to costs. ___________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE:14-03-2011. Dsh.