IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A. NO. 1679 OF 2003 Between: Sadula Satyamurthy ..... Appellant AND Sadula Sarala .....Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, in OP No. 49 of 1999 dated 10.10.2001, whereunder the petition filed by the appellant herein seeking divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized nine years prior to the filing of the divorce petition. They were blessed with one son and two daughters. The main case of the appellant is that the respondent treated him with cruelty. She was insulting him in front of their relatives and she was habituated to luxurious life and spend money lavishly beyond his earnings. She used to leave the house frequently without informing him and her attitude has caused him mental agony. The respondent filed counter and her main case is that she never harassed the appellant. In fact, after securing Government job, as a teacher, he started ill- treating her and compelled her to give consent to marry another woman. The appellant has harassed her demanding additional dowry and he was sending her to her parent’s house for the purpose of bringing additional dowry. The appellant used to press her throat and set fire to her clothes on 25.1.2000 and driven her out of the house along with children and since then she was forced to live with her parents. The only point that was framed by the trial court is whether there are sufficient grounds for dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. On behalf of the appellant, the appellant himself was examined as PW-1 and on behalf of the respondent, the respondent herself was examined as RW-1 and one Mittapalli Gangadhar, was examined as RW-2. The learned Judge, Family Court, on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the differences between the parties are trivial and the appellant, being a teacher, should have some patience and tolerance and that and the evidence does not prove that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty. Holding so, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Judge, Family Court, failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the Family Court. On 14.12.2010, this court directed the parties to be present before this court on 22.12.2010 for the purpose of conciliation. Accordingly, conciliation proceedings were conducted in chambers on 22.12.2010 in the presence of respective counsel, but both the parties are not inclined to patch up their disputes and differences. However, it appears that the children are staying with the appellant for sometime and their terms with the appellant and respondent appear to be cordial. It is also brought to the notice of the court that though the trial court has awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent, the same is not being paid by the appellant – husband and it is the parents of the respondent, who are taking care of the education and upkeep of the children. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the alleged acts of respondent make out a case of cruelty? We have perused the entire material on record. A reading of the evidence reveals that the respondent used to go to her parents house frequently and whenever the appellant questioned her, she used to quarrel with him. Another issue, which the appellant sought to contend is the respondent never used to prepare food for him in time and that when he had sent elders to bring her back, the respondent did not return. The evidence of the respondent reveals that she has never harassed the appellant and that after securing the Government job, the attitude of the appellant has changed and he used to insist her to give consent to marry another woman. The material on record does not support the version of the appellant. There may be disputes between wife and husband, but the same appears to be trivial in nature. Mere going to her parent’s house or not preparing food in time, by itself does not amount to treating the appellant with cruelty. Mental agony must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The evidence of the appellant is not sufficient to prove such cruelty and to grant divorce. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana _____________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar December 29, 2010 MAS.