THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2320 of 2002 MONDAY THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 Between: Meesala Rama Murthy .. Appellant and Meesala Suredamma .. Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2320 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) The dismissal of O.P.No.31 of 1996 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam by the order dated 25-9-1998 led the aggrieved husband to file the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appellant filed the petition before the trial Court for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that during the marital life for 3 years immediately after the marriage about 16 years earlier, he and the respondent were blessed with two daughters, but since then the respondent was going to her parents house without his consent. The differences became more acute and the parents of the respondent insulted the husband in spite of his efforts for reconciliation three or four times. As the respondent intentionally left his society, he gave a notice on 17-3-1992 for which a reply with false allegations was given. The respondent filed M.C.No.7 of 1992 for maintenance and the appellant had to file O.P.No.18 of 1992 for restitution of conjugal rights, but both the parties compromised as per which the appellant has deposited Rs.2,000/- in the name of his elder daughter in a bank. Still the respondent did not rejoin him and, hence, the present petition. The respondent wife, while admitting the marital relationship and birth of two daughters, claimed that the appellant developed illicit intimacy with another woman and stopped providing food and clothing to her and her children and he is under the influence of concubine and in spite of intervention by the elders, the appellant refused to take back the respondent. The respondent further claimed that though in due compliance with the compromise, she and her children joined the appellant, the appellant repeated the same conduct and as he was addicted to gambling, womanizing and drinking and his mother was keen to marry her grand- daughter to the appellant, the respondent and her children were again deserted by the appellant, who went away to his aunt’s house. Hence, the respondent desired that the petition be dismissed. The trial Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2 during the enquiry and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. The trial Court rendered the impugned order considering the rival contentions and the evidence produced by both the parties and noted that the evidence of the appellant and his witnesses showed that the appellant and the respondent were living separately since 15 years, and that the appellant gave a notice for restitution of conjugal rights for the first time after 9 years after their separation without any attempt to get back the wife in the meanwhile. The trial Court also referred to the positive evidence of the respondent and her brother about the causes for separation and presumed from the evidence that the appellant was addicted to vices and that he did not like the respondent as she was unable to give birth to a son. The trial Court also noted the close relationship between the parties. The trial Court also observed that even Ex.A.1 notice never exhibited any love and affection on the part of the appellant towards the respondent and only demands that the respondent should serve the aged mother of the appellant. The trial Court further found that it was only as a counter blast to the claim for maintenance by the respondent that the appellant appears to have filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. On both the occasions as the appellant did not explain any where the reasons for the respondent leaving his company and though the respondent left the marital home more than 12 years ago, the appellant did not take steps to take her back. The trial Court also found that the appellant alone is responsible for not taking back the respondent to his house, and the appellant filed the petitions for restitution of conjugal rights with mala fide intention, and consequently, the trial Court dismissed the petition with costs. The appellant challenges the said order in this appeal contending that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence before it properly, and the attempts of the appellant through elders and mediators for reconciliation indicate the facts, which were borne out by the evidence produced by the appellant before the trial Court. The appellant again reiterated the same grounds on which he sought for restitution of conjugal rights and sought for reversing the impugned order. Though the respondent did not appear through any counsel or in person in this matter after service of notice, heard Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant at length on merits. A close perusal and consideration of the entire material on record, discloses that the conclusions of the trial Court are factually sound and legally warranted. The appellant, who was seeking restitution of conjugal rights had to justify his request and it is seen that the respondent is no other than his niece and lived faithfully with him admittedly for the first 3 years without any troubles or disputes. The fact that the couple gave birth to two daughters during the period of their cohabitation would show that the marital life was congenial in the initial years, and even the appellant did not allege any specific reason for the respondent going away to her parents’ house without his permission. The appellant, who claimed to have raised disputes through elders had only examined two of them and he gave no reason as to why the other elders were not examined. He also could not give any reason as to why till 17-3-1992 for more than 9 years he never demanded the respondent to come back to him along with the children. There is no rejoinder to the reply notice issued by the respondent and the very fact that in spite of filing a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.7/1992 the respondent had agreed for a compromise on the appellant filing OP.18 of 1992 for restitution of conjugal rights, suggests that the respondent was always responsive and positive for restoring the marital tie. If the appellant had deposited Rs.2000/- in the name of elder daughter as compromised and if he looked after the respondent and children with all the love and affection, which he is trying to contend in the pleadings, the respondent had absolutely no reason to again desert him as alleged. Again it has to be seen that after the maintenance claim was made in M.C.28 of 1995, the appellant came up with this petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2 was carefully analyzed by the trial Court and there is no need to again re- appreciate the reasons and the conclusions of the trial Court against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The various circumstances speak for themselves and do not probablise the credibility of the claims of the husband and under the circumstances the petition for restoration of conjugal rights rightly failed before the trial Court and there is no need to interfere with the same in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J Dt: 26-10-2009 *Grk