THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.60 OF 2011 JUDGEMENT :(per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) This Family Court Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against order dated 16-11-2010, delivered in O.P. No.483 of 2005, filed by the respondent-petitioner under Section 13 (1) (ia) (v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short, the learned District Judge), seeking divorce against the appellant-respondent on the ground of cruelty and also on the ground that the appellant is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the petitioner in O.P. No.483 of 2005. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred as arrayed in the petition. 3. The claim made in the petition is as follows : The petitioner married the respondent on 14-08-1999 at Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram, following love affair between them. Immediately the marriage was consummated. During their wedlock they begot one son by name Sai Tarun. They lived happily for two years thereafter, the respondent developed vices like drinking and debauchery by reason of which he was contacted with H.I.V. disease and fell sick and still his health condition has been deteriorating. Therefore, thereafter there was no cohabitation between them. On the other hand, the respondent also did not take appropriate care to keep up good health. Hence, the petition was filed. 4. The respondent filed his counter admitting the marriage and giving birth to the children during their marital life but denying the other allegations made against him by the petitioner. 5. She got herself examined as PW.1 and one Dr. Machavaram Subhadra Devi was examined as PW.2 on her behalf and got marked EXs.A-1 to A-5 which are Immunology-Serology report issued by Appollo Diagnostics, Vijayawada, certificate issued by Dr. P. Rambabu, Case sheet of Respondent and HIV Test reports of herself (petitioner) and the respondent. On behalf of the respondent, he got himself examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. 5. On the basis of the material available on record, learned District Judge, Vijayawada, allowed the petition on the ground that the evidence of PW.2 concerned doctor would establish that the respondent was suffering from H.I.V. positive, by reason of which, it was not possible for the petitioner to continue her marital life with the respondent. 6. Therefore, it is to be seen as to : Whether the lower Court examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? And whether its order is tenable or not? 7. Points : No substantial evidence was adduced with regards to the plea of the petitioner that the respondent treated her with cruelty. Further, it is important that she got examined PW.2, Retired Professor of Microbiloogy in Siddhardha College, Vijayawada, who deposed that on 19-01-2000 she examined the petitioner and the respondent and conducted Rapid Screening Test and issued EXs.A-4 and A-5 test reports and she was of the opinion that the respondent was affected with HIV-I. In fact it is contended on behalf of the respondent that no name of the respondent is written in Exs.A-1 and A-5 and therefore it is not possible to link them with the respondent and thereby it is not established that he got H.I.V. positive, but it is clearly deposed by PW.2 in her cross-examination when such a question was put that generally they put the names of the patients in secrete code numbers in the registers for identification and she has brought the record containing the code numbers and names of the patients she treated and that evidence was not rebutted. Therefore, when the evidence of PW.2 is not rebutted accordingly it is to be accepted. Further, by virtue of Section 13 (2) of the Act, it is a ground to grant a decree of divorce as prayed for. 8. The lower Court considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and there is no reason to interfere with its findings. Hence, the Family Court Appeal is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. In the result, the Family Court appeal is dismissed, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE: 28-03-2011. Dsh. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. Date: 28-03-2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.60 of 2011 B e t w e e n: Pilli Mallikarjuna Rao. - - - Appellant/ Respondent. A n d P. Supraja. - - - Respondent/ Petitioner. The court made the following :