IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. Date: 15-03-2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.189 of 2011 B e t w e e n: Reddy Rama Krishna Reddy. - - - Appellant/ Petitioner. A n d Reddy Bharani. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY C.M.A. No.189 OF 2011 JUDGEMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the order dated 08-12- 2010, dismissing M.O.P. No.121 of 2008 filed by the applicant under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act., 1955 (for short, ‘the Act 1955’) seeking dissolution of the marriage between him and the Respondent on the ground of cruelty. 2. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondent is the respondent in M.O.P. No.121 of 2008 before the lower Court. The parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed before the lower Court for convenience. 3. The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows : He legally married the petitioner on 21-08-1994 and their marriage was immediately consummated and during their married life they begot one son by name Reddy Vishal Reddy and both of them lived together for several years happily and thereafter differences arose between them and the respondent started harassing him one way or the other and she used to leave the matrimonial house frequently and she also used to abuse him whenever he was questioning her conduct and she also used to abuse his mother and she further used to say that the marriage was conducted against her will. Further, the Respondent on her behalf and on behalf of her son filed Maintenance Case No. 21 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapeta, where it was allowed granting Rs.2,000 p.m. to the respondent and Rs.1,000/- p.m. to her son towards their maintenance Further, the respondent left the association of the petitioner on 25-12-2002 and in spite of his best efforts she did not join him. 4. The respondent filed counter denying the pleas taken by the petitioner and further contending that her parents agreed to give dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to him apart from giving 5 tulas of gold at the time of marriage and thereafter the petitioner started demanding the payment of the balance dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently the said amount was paid to the petitioner but still the petitioner continued to harass her and finally neglected and deserted her. 5. On behalf of the petitioner he got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 which happened to be certified copies of order in M.C. No.21 of 2003 and F.I.R. in Crime No.59 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C on the file of Suryapeta police station, which provide that the respondent gave a report against the petitioner on the ground of harassing her basing upon which the case was registered. Further, for the respondent, she got herself examined as RW.1and her father Sri N. Sai Reddy was examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B.3 which happened to be certified copies of petition, counter and order in M.C No.21 of 2009. 6. The lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim placing satisfactory evidence. 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 in fact to substantiate his claim but the lower Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions. He has emphasised very much upon the fact that the respondent has been living separately from him and also on the question of taking necessary measures to bring her back which according to him proved to be futile. When the petitioner claims divorce on the basis of cruelty, he has to place satisfactory evidence to the effect that in fact the respondent subjected him to cruelty which is sufficient to grant him the relief of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, 1955. 8. The facts which are admitted are that the respondent filed the said Criminal Case against the petitioner under section 498-A I.P.C. on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapeta. 9. The petitioner as PW.1 deposed according to his claim. Further, PW.2 who claims to be a neighbour of the petitioner deposed that the respondent used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner but in her cross- examination she admitted that she got no personal knowledge about the family affairs of the parties. Therefore, her evidence is not useful here. 10. There is no supporting evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner. If his claim is true his natural conduct would have been to take necessary steps to settle the issue and he can examine his neighbours who knew about her behaviour to uphold his claim. It is unbelievable under such circumstances that no efforts were made by him to conduct mediation as required. 11. On the other hand, the respondent as RW.1 and also RW.2 deposed according to her claim. Further, the fact that the respondent filed the Maintenance Case on behalf of herself and on her son and she also filed the Criminal case against the petitioner on the ground of harassing her amply supports her claim in the case. These circumstances amply prove that long ago they were separated from each other and therefore the question of treating him with cruelty subsequently would not have arisen at all. 12. For the foregoing reasons there are no merits in the Appeal, at the out set and accordingly it is liable to b dismissed at the stage of admission itself. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. __________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE: 15-03-2011. Dsh.