HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2417 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) The unsuccessful wife challenged the dismissal of O.P.No.36 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, by the order dated 22/09/2001 rejecting her plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant claimed that she and the respondent, since their marriage, lived together happily for five years though they had no children. The appellant alleged that from then the respondent started harassing her as she had no issues and created some documents alleging that a divorce deed was executed with the consent of the appellant in a panchayat. The appellant further alleged that the respondent necked her out from the marital home on which she was forced to live with her parents. The respondent opposed the request for restitution of conjugal rights contending that the appellant herself left the marital home, as she was not liking him since the marriage, on which, he got a panchayat conducted in Bommakal village before elders. As the appellant did not return home in spite of efforts, the elders decided in the panchayat on 15/03/1997 that the parties should take divorce and that the appellant should receive Rs.16,000/- from the respondent by way of permanent settlement. Accordingly, the divorce deed was executed on 24/03/1997 and money was paid. The respondent further contended that the articles of the appellant were also returned to her. The respondent further stated that subsequently, he married Latha on 02/12/1999 and is living with her and hence, no restitution of conjugal rights can be ordered. He also stated that he replied to the notice issued by the appellant. During enquiry before the trial Court, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and did not produce any other oral or documentary evidence, while the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and further examined R.Ws.2 to 5, the alleged witnesses of the panchayat in support of Ex.B-1 resolution of the elders and Ex.B-2 divorce deed. Ex.B-3 wedding card was also produced to show that the respondent was married to Latha later. The trial Court rendered the impugned order on a careful consideration of the entire evidence placed before it and found that there was absolutely no corroboration for the self-serving and interested claims of the appellant, while the claims of the respondent are corroborated by the independent elders R.Ws.2 to 5. The trial Court also noted that Exs.B-1 to B-3 were not denied by the appellant though she claimed the same to have come into existence under the circumstances claimed by her. The trial Court felt that, on the evidence on record, as the couple never had any cordial relationship with each other and had obtained divorce, no restitution of conjugal rights can be ordered, more so, after the second marriage of the respondent. Questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment as she explained the circumstances under which she was forced to subscribe to the divorce deed, the appellant contended that the trial Court should not have ordered the dismissal of the petition. Learned counsel for both sides are heard at length. The only point for consideration is whether the appellant was able to make out any justification for directing the respondent to submit himself to restitution of conjugal rights with her. The marital relationship originally existing between the parties is admitted and even the petition by the appellant itself specifically referred to some documents created by the respondent as if a divorce deed was executed before a panchayat with the consent of the appellant. Thus, the appellant herself was aware of her subscribing to the divorce deed being relied on by the respondent, but as observed by the trial Court she made no effort to produce any corroborating evidence for her interested claims about the circumstances in which Exs.B-1 and B-2 would have come into existence. The claim of the respondent in his counter and his evidence as R.W.1 was corroborated by the independent evidence of R.Ws.2 to 5 who were not shown to have any positive reason to resort to falsehood to help the respondent. Irrespective of the question whether the execution of such a divorce deed would have ended the marital relationship between the parties due to the existence of any valid custom governing the parties in that regard, the fact remains that the separate living of the spouses was with mutual consent before the elders. The appellant herself admitted in her evidence that her elder brother Chandraiah was also present and participated in the panchayat which would not have been the case if there was any element of coercion or force in obtaining the divorce deed. The marriage of the respondent with Latha as per Ex.B-3 wedding card would have been only in pursuance of the assurance to the respondent under Ex.B-2 about the earlier marriage being dissolved and it will be also a matter likely to create further complications if there were to be any order for restitution of conjugal rights in exercise of the judicial discretion of the Court, under such circumstances. The documents of the respondent i.e., Exs.B-1 to B-3 not being denied and in view of the positive evidence of R.Ws.2 to 5, the conclusions of the trial Court cannot be found fault with. Consequently, the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-10-2009 SKM