HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1477 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent by the order dated 09/04/2001 in O.P.No.192 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rangareddy District, the appellant filed the present appeal. The appellant and the respondent were admittedly married in March, 1975 and during the wedlock they had two sons. By the time of the marriage, the respondent was unemployed but later she was appointed as a Matron in S.C.Girls Hostel, Maktal, in 1985 and she was transferred to Jedcherla and then to Kodangal and then to Alampur. The couple lived happily till the employment of the respondent. The appellant alleges that since she got the job with higher salary, the respondent developed superiority complex and started quarrelling with and ill-treating the appellant at the instigation of her aunt Narasingamma. Though the appellant claimed that he put up with all the sufferings in the interest of the children, he claimed the wife to have not changed her attitude. The appellant further alleged that in 1992 he came to know that on one occasion the respondent went to a place in Karnataka State in a jeep with some unknown persons and he contended that when questioned the respondent bluntly told him that it was none of his business. He also alleged that the wife was instigating the children against him and that in November, 1993 when he was not in the house, she broke open the lock and took away 20 tulas of gold and Rs.1500/- in cash. He further alleged that the respondent purchased a house in front of his house and started harassing him refusing to come back to him in spite of his requests. Consequently, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, the husband sought for the divorce. The respondent contested the claim contending that initially when both of them were unemployed, the appellant’s mother was supporting them and after five months after the marriage, the appellant joined as a clerk in the Zilla Parishad High School at Ibrahimpatnam. The respondent alleged the appellant to be addicted to vices like drinking and womanizing and to be spending most of his income towards such vices without taking care of the household necessities. The husband was also alleged to be sadistic and to be beating the respondent with stick. She claimed that she was forced to take up the job as most of the earnings of the husband were spent for his vices and after employment she was staying in a rented room and sending most of the salary to the husband himself in order to support both the sons who were admitted in the schools at Hyderabad where the husband was working. The respondent and the appellant were staying alone in the places of their employment and though she was intending to come back by taking long leave or by resigning, the husband forced her to continue in the job. The respondent further claimed that there were incidents of exchange of words about the vices of the appellant who was bringing other women to the house in the absence of the respondent though the sons were present in the house. She further claimed that in October, 1994, the husband beat her so severely as to cause the fracture of her left leg and the respondent claimed that with her life savings and by taking loan from the Life Insurance Corporation, she purchased a house opposite to the rented house of the husband. The husband was demanding the respondent to give that money to him instead of purchasing the house and becoming angry with the purchase of the house, he beat the respondent and her children, and drove them away from the house in 1994. The respondent claimed that she attempted for reconciliation through mediations but in vain and hence, she desired the petition to be dismissed. During the enquiry before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B-6 were marked. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment observing that it was probablised that the respondent joined in the job with the knowledge and consent of the husband who himself claimed to have made his wife undergo Secondary Grade Teacher Training with his efforts. The trial Court also noted that when the husband was working in Hyderabad and the wife had to work at Maktal, Kodangal, Jedcherla and Shadnagar, the wife could not have been expected reasonably to come to the house of the husband at Hyderabad everyday. Consequently, as there was no justification for the grievance of the husband about the wife coming to him only once in a week, the trial Court concluded that there was no cruelty on the part of the wife for that reason. The alleged superiority complex of the wife due to her getting higher salary was also considered not proved and the solitary instance of the wife going in a jeep with others, even if it was considered to be true, would not lead to any conclusion of adultery or adulterous life. The trial Court further found that except the evidence of the husband, there was no other evidence on record about the happenings between the couple or the alleged ill-treatment by the wife. The evidence of the grown up son as R.W.2 in support of the mother was relied on by the trial Court apart from Ex.B-6 medical certificate showing that the wife sustained fracture on 25/10/1993. The trial Court considered the oral evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 to have clearly probablised the ill-treatment to be by the husband but not by the wife and the conduct of the wife in purchasing a house with her own funds in the name of the husband was considered to show the love and affection of the wife towards the husband and the separate residence of the wife and children was hence concluded to be due to the ill-treatment by the husband. The ground of desertion was also hence negatived by the trial Court and hence, the petition was dismissed. The appellant accuses the trial Court of not appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective in spite of the husband making out the grounds for grant of divorce. He claimed that the mental cruelty imposed by the wife by living separately since her employment and the desertion of the husband by her since separate living from December, 1993 should have led to the grant of divorce. The respondent did not enter appearance before this Court though served with notice of the appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously reiterated the challenge to the impugned order. The point for consideration is whether such cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife as would entitle the husband to a decree of divorce were probablised by the evidence on record. As already stated, the marital relationship between the appellant and the respondent since their marriage in March, 1975 and their having two sons through the conjugal relationship are admitted. It was only 22 years after the marriage that the husband came out with such allegations of cruelty and desertion by the wife and other acts of misconduct. Even those allegations pertain to allegedly what happened from 1985 to 1994 which were complained of for the first time before the Court in 1997. The interestedness in the evidence of the husband as P.W.1 and his admitted friend P.W.2 will necessarily require as a rule of prudence an independent corroboration from the other evidence and circumstances on record before accepting the same and coupled with the same, the silence of the husband for 22 years would make it necessary that the claims can be accepted only after very close scrutiny with great care and caution. The evidence of P.W.2 was only about his mediating between the couple concerning the disputes that arose between them and his evidence does not disclose any personal knowledge about the events that led to the separation of the couple and when the disputes since about 1994 are admitted by both the parties, the evidence of P.W.2 could not have been of any great assistance. That leaves the evidence of the husband himself as P.W.1, which as carefully analysed by the trial Court, rather indicated the joining of the job by the respondent to be with his support and consent and if so, he could not have later complained of the wife working at places other than his place of stay and the trial Court was right in concluding that the wife could not have been reasonably expected to come to the husband at Hyderabad everyday from her places of work. The alleged trip of the wife with some others to a place in Karnataka as stated by P.W.1 was uncorroborated by any other evidence and even if such trip were to be considered to be true that by itself could not have been taken as any questionable conduct on the part of the wife. While even an occasional lapse in virtue was considered to be not amounting to adultery or leading an adulterous life, even such an occasional trip cannot be treated to be proved by the interested claims of P.W.1. The alleged superiority complex of the wife due to her drawing higher salary is not borne out by any record as concluded by the trial Court and if she had developed such superiority complex since 1985, the conjugal relationship could not have continued till 1997 without any major incident. As opposed to this evidence for the appellant, the claims of the wife as R.W.1 were supported by the grown up son as R.W.2 and a relative of the respondent as R.W.3 who due to such relationship can be considered to be a natural witness to the disputes between the parties or the alleged vices of the husband. What was ultimately alleged against the wife was the purchase of the house opposite to the rented house of the husband against the wishes of the husband and her living separately with her children in that house and not with the husband. Even if it were true, it would never amount to cruelty, mental or physical or even desertion, if the wife was justified in so living separately. When the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 probablises that the wife had sufficient justification for so living separately due to the wayward conduct of the husband, his assaults on the wife and other circumstances, the acceptance of the version of the wife by the trial Court cannot be considered improper or unjustified. The purchase of the house by the wife in the name of the husband in spite of this strained relationship shows the anxiety of the wife to still keep the relationship alive and the mere fact that the couple were residing separately since 1994, even if indicative of any irretrievable break down of the marriage, could not have been an acceptable ground under Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage. Under those circumstances, there is no reason to differ with the trial Court and the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 31st December, 2009 SKM