THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.2957 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by wife aggrieved by the order dated 08.8.2001 in H.M.O.P.No.157 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla whereby and whereunder the O.P. filed by her for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent as arrayed in this C.M.A. 3. It is the case of the appellant that she is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 27.5.1982 at Gudipudi Village. At the time of marriage, her parents gave her an extent of Ac.3.18 cents of land ‘Pasupukumkuma’. They are blessed with two children. They shifted their residence to Bapatla to educate their children and stayed as tenants in the house of one Nalam Sreenivasa Murthy. The respondent was addicted to vices and started beating the appellant indiscriminately without any reason. The respondent indebted to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to Dhulipalla Ramachandra Rao, Nalam Sreenivasa Murthy and others and the respondent used to demand her to dispose of her land so as to clear the debt. She did not agree for the said proposal. On 27.11.1998 Chintamaneni Venkateswara Rao, Kondepu Venkateswarlu and others forcibly took away the appellant to Gudipudi Village and illegally detained her in a house and beat her indiscriminately and forced her to dispose of her land. However, she escaped from there and reported the matter to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and also Police, but no action was taken against the respondent. 4. On 09.12.1999 the respondent along with his mother and K.Venkateswarlu, Garikapati Veeraiah trespassed into the house of the appellant and forcibly took away electronic goods, 15 Soverigns of gold, cash of Rs.10,000/- and other household articles, and threatened her with dire consequences. Out of fear, the appellant went to Guntur and stayed in her friend’s house. Then the appellant came to know through Eenadu Newspaper that respondent gave police report complaining that Nelam Srinivasa Murthy kidnapped her. These events caused physical and mental agony to her. So, she gave the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Munsif Magistrate, Guntur denying the report appeared in the Newspaper. Unable to bear the harassment, the appellant came to Hyderabad to eke out her livelihood. The respondent and his followers came to Hyderabad and threatened to kill her if she comes to Bapatla or Gudipudi Village. The respondent, as such, tarnished the image of the appellant which amounts to cruelty. 5. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the appellant was not given an extent of Ac.3.18 cents of land towards ‘Pasupukumkuma’ at the time of marriage. He denied the allegations of the appellant with regard to their living as tenants in the house of Nalam Sreenivasa Murthy, his addicting to vices, beating the appellant without any reason, indebting to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and insisting the appellant to dispose of the land so as to clear the debt. He also denied that on 27.11.1998, he and others forcibly took her to Gudipudi and wrongfully confined her and forced her to dispose of the land; that she escaped and gave report to the Munsif Magistrate and Police; that on 9.12.1999 he and others committed theft of valuable household articles; that out of fear she went to Guntur and stayed in her friend’s house; that she came to know about the complaint given by him through Eenadu Newspaper and gave a statement before the Magistrate; that she went to Hyderabad to eke out her livelihood and that he and his followers threatened her at Hyderabad with dire consequences. 6. They lived happily up to August, 1998. They shifted their residence to Bapatla town to educate their children. Initially they stayed at a rented house of one Subbarao at S.N.P.Agraharam of Bapatla and he used to visit Gudipudi village for cultivation purpose. As the said rented house was inconvenient, they shifted to the terraced building of Nalam Ramachandra Rao as tenants. One Nalam Srinivasa Murthy is a Congress-I leader and he used to visit his house at Bapatla on one pretext or the other and developed relationship with the appellant. The respondent reprimanded him on several occasions but in vain. Having vexed with his attitude, the respondent shifted his residence to Gudipudi on 27.11.1998. On the intervening night of 4/5- 12-1998, the said Srinivasa Murthy and his son came to Gudipudi in a car and kidnapped the appellant with an intention to marry her or spoil her life. The respondent reported to Bapatla town Police Station, which registered a case in Crime No.151/98 under Sections 366, 498 read with 34 IPC. The son of Sreenivasa Murthy was arrested and released on bail but, Sreenivasa Murthy obtained anticipatory bail and was moving in the town freely. At that stage, the elders by name K.Subbarao, Sarpanch of Gudipudi, M. Nageswararao, Sarpanch of Etheru, Charles and C.Ravikumar, advocates intervened and settled the issue. As per the settlement, the respondent has to execute four nominal pronotes each at Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Nalam Sreenivasa Murthy and others and the pronotes shall be kept in the custody of N.Nagewara Rao, Sarpanch of Etheru till the criminal case is decided. Having no other go, the respondent executed pronotes and took the appellant into his custody and stayed for a short period in the house of Charles and shifted to Gudipudi. Again on 8.2.1999 the appellant was taken away by Srinivasa Murthy and the respondent could not trace out her whereabouts. At last on 9.10.1999 he traced her in an apartment in Saroornagar at Hyderabad and took her to Gudipudi. On 30.11.1999 Srinivasa Murthy lured her and took her to his house and has been residing with his family. The attitude of the appellant and Srinivasa Murthy caused great shock to the respondent’s father and he died on 30.11.1999. As the attitude of the appellant has spoiled the family atmosphere, the respondent kept his children in the residential colleges of Bapatla. The appellant took away the gold ornaments of their daughter pledged the same with the Bank and tried to misuse the amounts. The appellant has only life time interest in the land given to her and it would devolve upon her eldest daughter after her death. The appellant was never subjected to cruelty by him and he has no bad habits and he is not indebted to anybody. Nalam Srinivasa Murthy in order to escape from the criminal case got filed this petition. The appellant is not residing at Hyderabad, but in reality, she is residing in the house of Nalam Srinivasa Murthy. 7. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the court below framed the following points for consideration: “i. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner (appellant herein) with cruelty, mental or physical and made it difficult for the petitioner to live with her husband? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree for dissolution of marriage?” 8. On behalf of the appellant, appellant and two others were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and no documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent, respondent and his daughter were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked. 9. The court below after taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence brought on record as well as factual and legal aspects of the matter, dismissed the O.P. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the court below failed to see that the appellant was subjected to cruelty by the respondent, and that cruelty does not mean only bodily injury, but also mental injury. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the court below has given cogent and convincing reasons while dismissing the O.P., and as such, the impugned order does not warrant interference from this court. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration before this court is whether the appellant has proved that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent? 13. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 27.5.1982 at Gudipudi village as per Hindu rites and customs and they are blessed with one male child and one female child. The children were aged 16 and 14 years respectively at the time of filing of the O.P. 14. The appellant and the respondent lived happily upto 1998 at Gudupudi and later they shifted their residence to Bapatla to educate their children. The appellant stated that few years prior to filing the O.P, the respondent was addicted to vices and started beating her indiscriminately without any reasonable cause. But in the cross- examination as PW.1, she admitted that till they came to Bapatla in the year 1998, they lived amicably. PW.1 stated in her cross-examination that only in the year 1998 her husband-respondent was addicted to vices. This evidence is contrary to her plea that the respondent was addicted to vices few years prior to filing O.P.No.157 of 1999. The appellant did not file any complaint to anyone prior to 1998 about cruelty and harassment. RW.1 stated that his children stood first in the school and college and they were awarded with merit and best student certificates by the District Collector. He filed Exs.B.13 and B.14 to this effect. RW.1 stated that the District Collector, Guntur awarded him and his wife as best couple award and Ex.B.15 is the certificate. To that effect, PW.1 stated that she did not know about that fact. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of RW.1 with regard to his vices and misbehaviour with the appellant. 15. The evidence of RW.2, who is daughter of the appellant and the respondent, is crucial in the given facts and circumstances. She stated that her father has no vices like drinking and gambling and he never compelled her mother-appellant to dispose of the land and beat her. In her cross-examination, she supported the conduct of the respondent. She stated that Srinivasa Murthy used to visit their house and she and her father asked him not to visit their house to avoid the criticism by the public. As Srinivasa Murthy did not heed their advice, they shifted their residence to Gudipudi from Bapatla and later she was admitted in a hostel. 16. PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that her brothers Garikapati Venkata Subbarao, Laxmaiah and Nagamalleswararao also came with the respondent to take the household articles to Gudipudi from Baptala. In view of the above statement, the allegation of the appellant that on 27.11.1998, the respondent and two others forcibly took her to Gudipudi and beat her and wrongfully confined her in a house and forced her to dispose of landed property, cannot be believed, since the other persons are none other than her brothers, who helped the respondent in the process of shifting the family to Gudipudi because of the appellant’s suspicious conduct. 17. While, the respondent along with PW.1 and children residing at Gudipudi, on the intervening night of 4th/5-12-1998 Srinivasa Murthy and his son came to Gudipudi in a car and kidnapped the appellant and the respondent gave a report to Bapatla Taluk Police and the same was registered as Crime No.151 of 1998 under Sections 365 and 498 r/w 34 IPC and the son of Srinivasa Murthy was arrested and Srinivasa Murthy obtained anticipatory bail. PW.1 admitted that she has not intimated to her husband or children about her whereabouts after 4.12.1998. PW.1 stated that she went to Guntur and from there she shifted to Hyderabad and stayed with a known person. PW.1 stated that she stayed at Hyderabad for 9 months, but did not contact her husband. 18. The allegation of the appellant that she was compelled by the respondent to dispose of her property to clear the loans of 2,00,000/- obtained by him is not proved by her. Further, there is no proof to show that the respondent indebted to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. 19. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant has miserably failed to establish the ground of cruelty as contemplated under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act and on the other hand, her conduct speaks volumes. 20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of what is stated hereinabove, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla in O.P.No.157 of 1999 and as such, the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 21. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 15.03.2010 Stp