THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2679 of 2002 Date: 22.01.2010 Between: Moola Sanjeeva Reddy. ..Appellant and Moola Sujatha @ Shakuntala. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2679 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per GVS, J) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.01.2002 in O.P.No.18 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, wherein the petition filed under Section 13(1) (i-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The appellant herein, who is the husband of the respondent, filed petition before the Court below seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is not disputed that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 31.12.1989 at Balumallupalle Village of Siricilla Mandal, and after marriage they lived together for a period of nine months. It is also not disputed that during the matrimonial wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter and a son. The appellant alleges that the respondent used to frequently leave the matrimonial home to go to her parents’ house and stay there for months together and only on the intervention of the elders she used to come back and stay with the appellant for sometime and again leave the appellant’s society and go back to her parents’ house. The appellant pleads that the respondent had likewise gone to her parents’ house on more than three occasions during the period from 1989 to 1994, and finally she deserted him and went away to her parents’ house on 03.02.1995 without any valid or justifiable reason. The appellant also pleads that even while the respondent was staying with him, she was abusing him and insulting him in the presence of others and thereby subjecting him to mental cruelty. He also alleges that on one occasion she offered him a glass of poisonous milk and the glass fell down and the milk was consumed by a dog, which died on the spot. The appellant, therefore, pleads that he apprehends danger to his life at the hands of the respondent and the acts of the respondent amounted to cruelty. The respondent filed a counter before the Court below denying the allegations in the petition and contended that she never deserted the company of the appellant and that it was only the appellant who has driven her out of the house on several occasions and only at the intervention of the elders, he used to take her back and again he was harassing her and sending her out of the house with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent further contended that finally when her parents failed to fulfill the demand of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appellant and his sisters necked her out of the house by snatching away her gold ornaments. She also denies that she ever subjected the appellant to any insult or abuse or committed any acts of cruelty and the allegation pertaining to offering of poisonous milk and the dog dying after consuming the same is a false story cooked up by the appellant for the purpose of the petition. During the enquiry, P.Ws1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the appellant and D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the respondent and no documentary evidence was adduced on either side. On considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that the appellant failed to establish either of the two grounds of cruelty or desertion alleged by him and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of relief of dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred the appeal. It is not disputed that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 03.12.1989 as per the Hindu rites and customs and they lived together for sometime and during the matrimonial wedlock, they were blessed with a son and a daughter. The evidence on record also shows that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and the respondent and that the respondent had to leave the company of the appellant on several occasions and on the intervention of the elders, through Panchayat, she was taken back to the house of the appellant. The appellant alleges that the respondent was frequently going away to her parents’ house for months together leaving his company and finally on 03.02.1995, she left his company for no valid reason and thereby she deserted him. The respondent alleges that the appellant had been making demands for payment of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- at the instigation of his parents and the parents of the respondent are not able to arrange for the said amount. She was harassed and ill-treated and finally she was necked out of the house on 03.02.1995. Though the appellant alleges that the respondent was in the habit of going away to her parents’ house, he has not stated as to why she was going there and stay there for months together. Finally, she left the company of the appellant on 03.02.1995 and again there is absolutely no reason or cause furnished by the appellant either in the petition or in the evidence as to what was the reason or cause that prompted her to leave the company of the appellant once for all. The appellant has not put-forth any particular incident or event that has taken place preceding the leaving of the house by the respondent on 03.02.1995. The evidence on record clearly establishes that it was only because of the demand made by the appellant, which was not fulfilled by the respondent and her parents, the respondent was sent out of the house by the appellant. The finding of the Court below that the respondent was not at fault and she cannot be said to have deserted the company of the appellant does not call for interference. Regarding the other ground of cruelty alleged by the appellant, there are no specific acts attributed to the respondent either in the petition or in the evidence that would constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. For the petty quarrels between the wife and the husband and nagging behaviour of the appellant, the wife cannot be held guilty of acts of cruelty that would endanger the life of the husband. In order to get over the same, the appellant has chosen to weave a story that on one occasion, the wife gave poisonous milk, and the glass fell down, and the milk was consumed by a dog and the dog died on the spot. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly felt that the said story put-forth through P.W.3 cannot be believed at all. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that the respondent was indulging in any acts of cruelty or that there was any complaint to the Police about any such acts. As rightly observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, if really the respondent was intending to kill the appellant by administering poison, she would have certainly agreed for divorce and would not have contested the petition at all. The impugned order also shows that the learned Senior Civil Judge has taken conciliatory efforts but they were in vain because of the attitude of the appellant though the respondent was willing to join him. Under those circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly held that the appellant has not made out the grounds of desertion or the cruelty alleged by him and therefore, he is not entitled to seek dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 22nd January, 2010 ____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) GHN