IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2896, 2897 and 2909 of 2011 Between: K.Ushasri … Petitioner And K.V.Subba Rao … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2896, 2897 and 2909 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: - These revisions, which are interconnected with each other and arise out of the same O.P., are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Respondent/husband filed O.P.No.259 of 2006 seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the petitioner/wife treated him with cruelty. One of the instances as narrated in para 16 of the petition filed in the O.P., to establish the cruelty is that the petitioner entered into the house of the respondent forcibly and beat the watchman with cobble stone and attempted to kill his mother and caused various injuries on her head and the spinal card. On sustaining the injuries, she was admitted in the hospital and later underwent major operation on 21.02.2006 and she is still on bed. Apart from the said instance, the other instances as narrated in the O.P., which amounts to cruelty, were reported to the police and thereby the police registered a case in crime No.45 of 2006. On closure of the evidence, when the matter is coming up for arguments, petitioner filed I.A.No.699 of 2011 to reopen the petitioner’s side evidence for the purpose of marking certified copy of the order in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2010, dated 23.08.2010, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada; I.A.No.700 of 2011 to recall P.W.1; and I.A.No.707 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing the document. On dismissal of the I.A.No.699 of 2011 filed for reopening of the petitioner’s side evidence, by the impugned order, dated 15.07.2011, C.R.P.No.2896 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner/wife. Consequent to the dismissal of I.A.No.699 of 2011, the other I.As., viz., I.A.Nos.700 and 707 of 2011 were also dismissed. Questioning the same, C.R.P.Nos.2909 and 2897 of 2011 were filed. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that once the cruelty pleaded by the respondent/husband is falsified, in view of the discharge order passed in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2010, dated 23.09.2010, the petitioner should be permitted to rebut the plea of cruelty metted by the petitioner to the family members of the respondent. Per contra, Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the petitioner was charge sheeted on the complaint lodged by the mother of the respondent/husband in C.C.No.1066 of 2006, before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in which the petitioner unsuccessfully filed Crl.M.P.No.3069 of 2006. On dismissal of the same, she carried the matter in revision viz., Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2010 and the same was allowed setting aside the order of dismissal in Crl.M.P.No.3069 of 2009 to discharge the petitioner. On allowing the Crl.R.P., the mother of the petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is admitted and is pending. In view of the same, the said document cannot be marked, as it has not attained finality. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the entire burden rests upon the respondent to establish the cruelty metted by the petitioner to obtain the divorce. The petitioner was charged for the offence on the complaint lodged by the mother of the respondent/husband and the order in which the petitioner was discharged has not attained finality because the same i s sub judice before this Court. The burden always lies upon the respondent/husband to establish the cruelty for obtaining a decree of divorce. The proceeding in the criminal case is not initiated by the husband, but by the mother of the husband, which is one of the instances that was shown by the husband to establish the cruelty. Since the fact that the said order has not attained finality and the same is subject matter of challenge before this Court, the lower court rightly dismissed the I.As. filed for reopening the petitioner’s evidence; for recall and for condoning the delay. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 05-08-2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2896, 2897 and 2909 of 2011 Dt: 05-08-2011 lmv