THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2563 OF 2002 21st October 2009 Between: Smt.B.Indira, W/o.T.Kaladhar, 38 years, Occ.Household, R/o.Vaidehi Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District. …APPELLANT AND 1. T.Kaladhar, S/o.Veeraiah, 50 years, occ.Employee: Reserve Bank, R/o.Block 316/0, RBI Qtrs., Begumpet, Hyderabad. And one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2563 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad} The dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent by allowing O.P.No.141 of 1997 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, by the order dated 31.07.2002 led the aggrieved wife/first respondent therein to file the present appeal. The first respondent herein filed O.P.No.141 of 1997 for grant of divorce alleging that after marriage in 1981, the husband and wife lived at Warangal together during which period, a son was born. The first respondent further alleged that after they shifted to Hyderabad on his getting appointed in the Reserve Bank of India, another son was born in 1984 and a girl child was born in 1986. The first respondent further alleged that when they were staying in Reserve Bank of India Quarters, in about December 1992, the second respondent visited their house along with Bhoomaiah, who was acquainted with the first respondent and the acquaintance developed between the appellant and the second respondent resulted in questionable closeness between them. When the first respondent went to Calcutta in December 1993 along with his son, who participated in the National Games, the appellant and the second respondent visited Vijayawada, Guntur and Chirala and stayed at different places together, during which period they even met the sister of the appellant. In spite of the advice by the first respondent, the appellant did not discontinue her closeness with the second respondent and the first respondent himself, when he made a surprise visit to his own house during day- time on a working day, found the appellant and the second respondent to be involved in illicit intimacy. The appellant and the second respondent were also caught by the police in a Lodge at Bhongir, but were later let off and in spite of admonition by the first respondent, the appellant did not desist from her adulterous conduct. There were subsequent visits to Miryalaguda and other places by them and the second respondent was taking the appellant on his scooter to the Jubilee Hills School and they were seen in compromising positions by many. The first respondent further alleged that the appellant left the house of the first respondent for ever on the instigation of the second respondent in April 1995 and started living separately in a house purchased by the first respondent in her name and the second respondent was regularly meeting her in the said house. The appellant and the second respondent, in their counters, denied the allegations and the appellant contended that she was treated with cruelty by the first respondent and that she was acquainted with the second respondent only after her marriage, the first respondent himself having introduced the second respondent. She further alleged that the first respondent took a loan from the second respondent and did not repay the same and the first respondent was also moving closely with one Ahalya. The appellant also contended that the first respondent forced her to live separately and failed to look after her needs resulting in her filing M.C.No.8 of 1997 for maintenance. She claimed that the first respondent filed this petition for divorce as a counter blast. She also claimed that there were many other instances of harassment described in detail in the counter. The second respondent, in his counter, stated that he never visited any place along with the appellant and never stayed together with her. He never purchased any sarees or other articles for the appellant and in fact, the first respondent borrowed monies to an extent of Rs.1,36,000/- from him and failed to repay the same. He claimed that he was falsely implicated. On such pleadings, the trial Court recorded the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties during the enquiry examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.B1 to B5. The trial Court rendered the impugned order referring to the evidence placed on record and noting that Ex.A3-letter received by his father-in-law and Ex.A5-letter in the handwriting of the appellant corroborate the claims of the first respondent as P.W.1 and his younger brother as P.W.2. The trial Court also referred to the evidence of P.W.3 in support of the version of the first respondent. The trial Court also observed that the second respondent trapped the appellant and was having illicit intimacy with her and that the appellant, as R.W.1, did not deny Ex.A5-letter being in her handwriting. The trial Court also noted that Ex.A3 also disclosed that R.W.1 fell in love with the second respondent and the trial Court relied on the evidence of P.W.3 about the visits of the second respondent to the appellant during the absence of the first respondent. The trial Court also referred to the precedents as to the manner of appreciation of evidence in this regard and concluded the appellant to be leading adulterous life with the second respondent, which amounts to cruelty towards the first respondent justifying the allegations of the first respondent. The appellant challenged the impugned order solely on the ground that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court was fallacious and the impugned order is, hence, unsustainable. Learned counsel for both the parties are heard. On behalf of the first respondent herein, there was the independent evidence of P.W.3 to probablise the relationship between the appellant and the second respondent, which could not have been considered honourable by the very nature of the visits of the second respondent to the appellant during the absence of the husband/the first respondent. On behalf of the appellant and the second respondent, the only evidence that was placed before the trial Court was the self- serving and interested evidence of themselves and the documents, Exs.B1 to B5, marked by them, even if they disclose some transactions between the parties, may not be suffice to rebut the probabilities arising out of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. If the husband was forced to allege in public that his wife was leading an adulterous life, after having three children through her, there must have been very strong circumstances for him to do so and the complaint by the husband after sixteen {16} years of the marriage could not have been without positive and strong circumstances, which must have broken his heart. The documents marked on behalf of the first respondent, more particularly, Ex.A5, admittedly in the handwriting of the wife and Ex.A3-letter are suggestive of the probability of illicit intimacy between the appellant and the second respondent and it is clearly stated in the letters that the first respondent was angry with the appellant and the second respondent, obviously, for the manner in which they were moving together. Living in adultery is difficult to be proved by any direct evidence except by circumstantial evidence like that produced by the first respondent in this case and even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 were to be considered interested, there was no reason to reject the independent evidence of P.W.3, who was shown to have no reason or motive to depose falsely against the wife. In the circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court cannot be said to be divorced from broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record and consequently, the grant of divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruelty cannot be interfered with in this appeal. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ____________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 21st October 2009 RRB