IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.M.A.No.890 of 2003 BETWEEN: Chava Lakshmi Kumari @ Kandipati Lakshmi Kumari … APPELLANT(S) AND Velagani Venkateswara Rao …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.M.A.No.890 of 2003 ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2003 passed in H.M.O.P.No.214 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 (hereinafter to referred to as – ‘the Act’). Background facts in a nutshell leading in filing of this appeal under Section 28 of the Act are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 12.05.1994 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vaikuntapuram, Tenali, as per Hindu customs and religious rites. According to the appellant-wife, her parents gave Rs.20,000/- towards dowry and gifted Ac.1-00 of land towards pasupu-kumkuma apart from presenting all customary presentations, and house hold articles worth Rs.10,000/-. They led happy marital life for a short period. The respondent-husband is stated to be a short tempered person and is addicted to all sorts of vices such as drinking alcohol, playing cards, moving with girls of loose morals etc. He is an employee of Sangam Dairy, Vadlamudi, Guntur. The appellant-wife secured employment as a clerk in J.K.C. College, Guntur, in an unaided post after the marriage. Respondent-husband started harassing the appellant-wife to set apart her salary to meet his vices. On 08.06.2001, the respondent-husband came to the house of the appellant-wife in drunken state, abused her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately. The appellant-wife having no other go left the matrimonial home and reached her parental house. She filed the O.P. under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The respondent-husband filed counter resisting the relief sought for by the appellant-wife. It is the case of the respondent- husband that the appellant-wife has been spending her salary amount for the well being of her sister’s children and maintaining the family of her maternal uncle, who has been examined as P.W.2. The vices attributed to him have been denied. According to him, the appellant- wife left his house on 08.06.2001 out of her own accord. The appellant-wife has been residing with her sister Satyavathi at A.T.Agraharam, Guntur, and attending the college where she is employed. The trial Court formulated the following issue for trial. (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for in the petition? On behalf of the appellant-wife, she got herself examined, as P.W.1, and examined her maternal uncle M.Sadasiva Rao as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondent-husband, he got himself examined, as R.W.1, and examined his father Ch.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad as R.W.2. The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant-wife failed to make out a valid ground for dissolution of marriage and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 08.01.2003. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal by the wife. Despite notice being served on the respondent-husband, he did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife and perused the order impugned in the appeal and the evidence brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife submits that the evidence of appellant-wife, as P.W.1, has been amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and, therefore, the trial Court is not justified in discarding the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the cruelty meted out by her in the hands of the respondent-husband. The learned counsel also took us to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to convince that the appellant-wife has made out a valid ground for dissolution of marriage. As seen from the record, the appellant-wife, as P.W.1, deposed that on 08.06.2001, the respondent-husband came to her in a fully drunken state, abused her and her family members in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately all over the body and demanded her to get money from her parents. She has specially stated in her evidence that the respondent-husband beat her repeatedly over hundred times since the date of her marriage. Her evidence is consistent with regard to ill treatment she meted out in the hands of the respondent-husband. She is an employee working in J.K.C. College, Guntur, as Junior Assistant. She has no reason to speak falsehood against the respondent, who is none other than her husband. P.W.2 is the maternal uncle of the appellant-wife. He deposed that on 08.06.2001, the appellant-wife came to her village Kopparru in Pedanandipadu Mandal of Guntur District with her wearing apparels and informed that the respondent-husband beat her after having fully drunk. The incident that occurred on 08.06.2001 has been established by the appellant- wife. The trial Court, without considering the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the incident occurred on 08.06.2001 proceeded to record a finding that the appellant-wife failed to make out the ground of cruelty. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that she did not lodge complaint before the police when her husband beat her. Mere not lodging a complaint with the police cannot be a ground to discard her testimony if it is otherwise trustworthy. ‘Cruelty’ postulates the treatment of the petitioner to such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is harmful or injurious to the petitioner to live with the other spouse. The appellant-wife, while being examined as P.W.1, stated specific instances of harassment meted out by her in the hands of the respondent-husband. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the respondent-husband is habituated to various vices and resorted to beat her. If such is the conduct of the respondent-husband, it can be definitely said that it constitutes a cruelty. The appellant-wife has been setting apart his earnings for the well being of her sister’s children and also the family of her maternal uncle, who has been examined as P.W.2. Mere spending money by the appellant-wife for the well being of her own relations cannot be an eye sore to the respondent- husband. It is not the case of the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife is spending the property belonging to him for the well being of her relations. On close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, we find that the appellant-wife made out a valid ground for grant of divorce for dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 08.01.2003 passed in H.M.O.P.No.214 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, and, consequently, the O.P. is allowed dissolving the marriage between parties celebrated on 12.05.1994. No order as to costs. ______________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) ______________________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 4th February, 2010 CVRK