THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.M.A.No.1327 of 2000 Dated 04th November 2009 Between: Pullyala Narsimha Reddy s/o Pratap Reddy. …Petitioner And P.Bharati w/o P.Narsimha Reddy …Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.M.A.No.1327 of 2000 ORDER: (Per the Ho’nble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The unsuccessful petitioner in the Court below is the appellant- husband filed this appeal aggrieved against the orders dismissing the petition in O.P.No.58 of 1998, dated 19-4-2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal filed under Section 13 (1) (a) (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent. In brief, the facts of the case are that the parties were married on 12-3-1980 and thereafter certain disputes arose attributing impotency against the appellant herein. However, the marriage was consummated, according to the appellant, and the daughter was born on 12-10-1985. The appellant was a student at relevant point of time and even though certain attempts were made for settlement, the same could not yield any result. However, having regard to the attitude of the respondent herein whereby she deserted the appellant and the cruelty meted out the appellant sought for divorce. The petition was resisted by the respondent herein denying the entire allegations and further stating that in fact it is the respondent herein who has apprehended threat to her life due to the actions on the part of the appellant himself. However, the respondent denied that there is no consummation, but she was made to speak falsely about the consummation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. After framing of the points for consideration, the parties went into trial where the appellant examined himself as PW.1 apart from PW.2 his father and PW.4 his daughter and one T.Srinivas as PW.3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and one P.Venkat Reddy as RW.2. On appreciation of the entire evidence and material on record, the Court below did not find favour with the appellant holding that he has failed to establish the alleged desertion and cruelty and dismissed the petition. Hence, the appeal. By taking into account the grounds as urged in this appeal and on perusal of the material on record, ultimately the only point that arises is in regard to whether the appellant is entitled to divorce on the facts and circumstances. There is no dispute in regard to the aforesaid checkered events and the only allegation against the respondent is that of desertion and cruelty. However, even though the appellant had examined himself as PW.1 and supported by another two witnesses PW.2 and PW.4, however, the nature of cruelty or any acts have not been specifically mentioned nor substantiated by any evidence. The entire case as set forth by the appellant was reflected by examining the wife as RW.1 supported by RW.2. The Court below has found in the said evidence that absolutely the appellant has no intention to live with his wife though she is residing in his house at the village. Having regard to such finding of fact which is purely based on the appreciation of the evidence and material on record, and more so, when there is failure on the part of the appellant herein to substantiate any valid ground, there are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J Dt: 04-11-2009 Grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH (The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) C.M.A.No.1327 of 2000 Dated 04th November 2009