IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.3066 OF 1998 Between: Sunkaranam Anuradha …Appellant A n d Sunkaranam Venkata Kanaka Rajeswara Rao and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.3066 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal is directed against the common order dated 12-11-1998 in O.P.No.408 of 1997, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said petition filed by the respondent/husband herein seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed, granting a decree of divorce with a direction that he shall pay Rs.1000/- per month to the appellant/wife herein as future maintenance. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that the appellant was the wife of the respondent, their marriage having taken place at Yelamanchili and was consummated. They lived together at Sagarnagar and thereafter shifted to Pothinamallayyapalem. According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1 lakh as dowry to the respondent’s mother for their welfare and also presented four tolas of gold ornaments. The appellant alleges that she was subjected to harassment by the respondent and his mother demanding more dowry and sare samans and that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was given by her brother towards sare samans. She further alleged that after keeping quiet for some time, the mother of the respondent started harassment again and the respondent was heeding to the words of his mother and neglecting the appellant. She gave a report to Bheemunipatnam police in April 1996 and women protection cell and also to the Flag Officer, Navy, wherein the respondent was working. She alleges that she was necked out of the house on 10-06-1996 without any reason. She further alleges that in spite of intervention by the elders and departmental authorities of the respondent, he has not taken her back and on the other hand issued a lawyer’s notice dated 21-10-1997 seeking divorce for which she gave a reply on 01-11- 1997. The appellant filed O.P.No.394 of 1997 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and by a common order, the said O.P was dismissed. The respondent herein, the husband, filed O.P.No.408 of 1997 seeking divorce on the ground that the appellant had left the matrimonial home on her own and refused to come back and thereby deserted him. He even alleged that on 22-05-1996 the appellant tried to kill the respondent’s mother by mixing poison in coffee, but somehow it was not consumed by his mother. He further alleges that the appellant developed grudge against the respondent and his family members and made him to come to the police Station, causing mental torture to the respondent and was frequently complaining to his superior authorities falsely alleging that he was demanding additional dowry. He further pleaded that on the advise of the administrative authorities, he was paying Rs.750/- per month to the appellant towards maintenance and that the appellant was sending letters to the authorities, blackmailing the appellant. The respondent, therefore, sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty, physical and mental harassment and desertion. 4. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the respondent/wife. R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked on behalf of the respondent/husband. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed O.P.No.394 of 1997 filed by the appellant/wife for restitution of conjugal rights and allowed O.P.No.408 of 1997 filed by the respondent/husband for divorce with a direction that he shall pay future maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the wife, impugning the order granting divorce. 6. The respondent herein sought divorce mainly on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. Apart from examining himself as R.W.1, he had also examined two other witnesses R.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B- 13 to show that the appellant had indulged in making false complaints against him to the administrative authorities and also sending letters against him and blackmailing him. The learned Judge, Family Court had, on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent/husband, held that the evidence on record established that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty by the appellant/wife. It was further observed by the learned Judge, Family Court that the entire evidence goes to show that she never desired to reside in the matrimonial home along with the husband in the joint family and was always insisting that he should separate himself from his mother for which the respondent did not agree. It was further held that the appellant did not pay any attention for her husband, the respondent, when he was sick and, therefore, he was constrained to seek the help of his mother. Her persistent conduct in making complaints to the police and superiors of the respondent also amounted to subjecting him to mental cruelty. The appellant had by her complaints and letters to the naval authorities brought about a situation where the said authorities had to intervene and advise the appellant to take a sum of Rs.750/- per month from the respondent towards her maintenance. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence on record that she left the matrimonial home on her own choice, as she was not willing to live with the respondent in the joint family which comprises himself and his mother and sisters and she was bent upon having a separate family. Under those circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court had rightly held that the conduct of the appellant/wife clearly amounted to voluntary desertion on her part besides subjecting the respondent/husband to mental cruelty. The impugned order granting divorce on the above said grounds which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court, that too at this length of time of about 10 years after passing of the impugned order. 7. Under these circumstances, it is held that the impugned order granting divorce is not liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly confirmed. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J 05th October, 2009 _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Lrkm/Bss.