HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.338 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-wife as well as learned counsel for the respondent-husband. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 20.01.2009, in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2006, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”) and Rule-6 of the Rules and Regulate Proceedings of the Act, seeking to dissolve the marriage between both the parties by a decree of divorce. 3. The appellant is wife and the respondent is husband. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as ‘the wife’ and ‘the husband’. 4. The undisputed facts are that the marriage between both the parties took place on 25.3.1993 at T.T.D. Kalyana Mandapam in Bhimavaram. The marriage was consummated and out of the wedlock, they begot two children, namely (1) Avinash and (2) Asheesh. It appears that the wife studied M.C.A. and the husband is a Graduate in Bachelor of Dental Surgery and practicing as a Dental Surgeon at Bhimavaram. Four years after the marriage, both the spouses came down to Hyderabad in search of job opportunities in foreign. Initially, the wife got an opportunity to go to the United States and at the acceptance of the husband, she left for the U.S. in 1999. Thereafter the husband also left for the U.S. and joined the wife. However, he could not continue his profession because of certain constraints. Whereas the wife was placed comfortably in the field of Computer Applications. Even after considerable time, since the husband could not get any job or able to continue his profession because of various compulsions, the wife allegedly got fed up with the idle life that was being led by the husband. The husband also, after some time, not being compatible with the wife and children, as an unemployee, left the home belonging to the wife and started living separately in the U.S. There was some exchange of thoughts and hostilities both by the wife and husband, through their elders also. All the attempts initiated by the elders as well as the spouses ended in failure and as a result of which, the spouses could not come together and lead the marital life. Hence the wife filed the present petition against the husband seeking divorce. 5. In fact, these differences have actually emerged somewhere in 1999 and reached its heights in 2006 before filing the present petition for divorce. Even as of now, the parties are residing in the U.S. only. 6. Before the Court below, the wife got examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2, who is her maternal uncle. The husband was examined as R.W.1. No documents were marked by either side. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Court below arrived at a conclusion that no strong case is made out by the wife to dissolve the marriage and accordingly dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the wife has filed the present appeal. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the wife that the husband did not take proper care of the family and never tried seriously for getting any job and with her earnings only, the wife has taken care of the family without any financial assistance by the husband. Further that the husband was frequently quarrelling with the wife unnecessarily. It is the further allegation of the learned counsel for the wife that the husband has been suffering from inferiority complex since he has not been an earning person and further that he has been subjecting the wife to mental cruelty by entering into the verbal attacks on her. 8. Though, broadly in many respects, we are in agreement with the Court below in rejecting to grant divorce, we could see the acute indifference on the part of the husband also, at this length of time, to live with the wife. This indifference is explicit from the very submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the husband. But, we could not find anything on record. This also has been supported by the absolute indifferent attitude expressed by the wife through the submissions of her counsel. Therefore, what we could see is the total indifference on the part of both the wife and husband to continue the marital life. 9. We make it clear that all the allegations levelled against the husband cannot be held to be proved and, at the same time, this Court also cannot ignore the fact that both the parties are totally indifferent in continuing their marital tie. When the attitude on the part of the husband is so explicit, we do not find a better reason to agree with the contention of the wife. Perhaps, what we could see now, could not have seen by the Court below at the time of disposal of the petition for divorce. 10. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, particularly in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the husband expressing his disinterestedness to contest the appeal and also the hostile attitude of both the parties towards each other, we are of the view that it is desirable to give a quietus to the litigation by dissolving the marriage between the parties. 11. Further, the wife is not claiming any permanent alimony from the husband and it is quite obvious when the husband is an unemployee, staying in the U.S., more particularly in the light of the fact that the wife herself made an allegation that the husband has been leading the life without any employment and nothing is being contributed to the family. 12. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and decree, dated 20.01.2009, in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2006, passed by the Court below, and the marriage between both the parties shall stand dissolved. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 04.08.2010 Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.338 of 2009 04.08.2010 (Msr)