THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A.No.187 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the order and decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.67 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, dated 24-01-2011, whereby and whereunder the said O.P. filed by the appellant herein seeking divorce under Section 13 (I) (Ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed. As seen from the record, the respondent-husband in spite of receiving notice did not contest the matter before the lower court. However, the lower court holding that the ingredients of cruelty have not been proved and the allegations even if accepted were not in the nature of normal wear and tear dismissed the said O.P. This Court issued notices to the respondent. In spite of service of notice on 23-11-2011, the respondent did not appear before this Court. Heard the arguments of Sri N.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the lower court has not considered the evidence properly and erroneously dismissed the said O.P. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant has proved that the respondent treated her with cruelty ? The brief facts are as follows:- The marriage between the appellant and respondent was performed on 28-02-2008. After marriage, they lived at Purushottampatnam for twenty days and later shifted to Hyderabad for securing job. They lived at Hyderabad for seven months. The appellant’s specific case is that while staying at Hyderabad, the respondent used to harass her physically and mentally. He used to abuse her with suspicious mind. He used to state that his family is highly cultured and the family of the appellant is not cultured. He used to find fault with the appellant without any fault or reason. He used to say that had he married another woman, he would have been in a better career. It is specifically alleged that the respondent used to beat the appellant sadistically and thus, the appellant was subjected to cruelty. It is further stated that both the appellant and the respondent came back to Purushottampatnam, as the respondent could not secure any job at Hyderabad. Both of them stayed at her in-laws house for ten days. The further allegation of the appellant is that in their in-laws house also, the respondent used to find fault with the appellant without any reason and that on the eve of Dasara festival, the respondent dropped the appellant at her parents house on 05-10-2008 and informed the appellant that he would go to Chennai for securing job and after getting job he would take her back to Chennai. It is alleged that the respondent did not inform the appellant as to whether he got any job or not and when the parents of the appellant enquired about his avocation, there was no response. It is further alleged that finally one month prior to filing of the petition, the appellant and her parents approached the respondent and his parents and they informed that the respondent is not interested to live with the appellant and that the marriage was performed against his will and wish. It is also alleged that though the appellant had sent for mediation the same resulted in vain. When the respondent was set ex-parte, the appellant filed chief affidavit and she had reiterated the petition averments. With regard to harassment, she had categorically deposed that the respondent used to harass her physically and mentally and used to abuse her with suspicious mind. She had categorically deposed that the respondent used to beat her sadistically. It is also her specific case that when she and her parents approached the respondent and his parents, they had categorically informed that the respondent is not interested to live with the appellant and the marriage was performed against his wish and will. It is also stated that even meditation was tried but failed. We have perused the order of the lower court. It appears that the lower court has not read the entire deposition of PW.1. The lower court has not considered the specific assertion of the appellant to the effect that the respondent used to beat her sadistically. The lower court has also not considered the version of the appellant that when the appellant and her parents approached the respondent and his parents, they specifically told them that the respondent is not interested to live with the appellant. It is the bounden duty of the Court to read all the pleadings and also the entire evidence. A reading of the material on record clinchingly establishes that the respondent used to insult the appellant and used to abuse her with suspicious mind and he used to beat her sadistically. Thus, the respondent caused not only mental harassment, but also physical harassment. The acts of the respondent, in our considered view, amount to cruelty. The same cannot be simply termed as normal wear and tear in the matrimonial life, besides that, the conduct of the respondent is also be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the respondent did not appear before the lower court in spite of receiving notice and he was set ex-parte. After filing this appeal, notice was sent to the respondent. In spite of receiving notice, he has not appeared before this Court. It is pertinent to note that the intention of the respondent clearly shows that he is not at all interested in the appeal and it appears that the marriage was performed against his will and wish. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the appellant has proved her case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently the marriage of the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved granting a decree of divorce. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 04-07-2011 Prv