THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.Nos.386 & 458 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Both the appeals are filed by the appellant-husband challenging the common order dated 1.4.2008 passed in H.M.O.P.Nos.3 of 2005 and 65 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District. The appellant-husband filed H.M.O.P. No 3 of 2005 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the appellant stated that he married the respondent-wife on 09.02.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri Kalyana Venkateswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, Martada, Krishna District, and that thereafter, they lived happily for some time at Veerankilock village. While so, the respondent-wife went to her parents’ house in the month of March, 2004 and did not return, and that the attempts made by him through elders to bring her back to his marital fold failed. That the parents of the respondent-wife abused him in filthy language and openly proclaimed that they will perform her marriage with another boy. Therefore, he filed the said petition. The respondent-wife filed counter denying the allegations made by the appellant- husband, and with the very same averments, she filed separate H.M.O.P. No. 65 of 2006 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant-husband. She stated that the appellant- husband married her forcibly against her will and consent. That while she was waiting for the bus at Kanikapadu bus stop to go to college, the appellant-husband along with his friends took her away and forced her into marriage by administering threat that he will kill all her family members if she did not marry him. Therefore, apprehending danger to the life of her family members, she married the appellant-husband. Later, they went to the house of the appellant-husband. The parents of the appellant-husband made her to withdraw the amounts from her bank account and subjected her to untold cruelty both physical and mental to bring dowry. That unable to bear the harassment of the appellant-husband and his family members, she went to her parents’ house. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, and based on her complaint, a case was registered against the appellant-husband for the offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC. The appellant-husband as a counter-blast to the said complaint, filed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant-husband filed counter to the divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife, denying the allegations of ill-treatment of the respondent-wife by him as well as his parents. That the respondent-wife left his company and filed the divorce petition at the instance of her parents, who did not like her marriage with the appellant-husband. Before the Court below, the appellant-husband examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two others as P.Ws.2 & 3 and got Exs.A1 to A9 marked on his behalf, while the respondent-wife examined herself as R.W.1 and examined two others as R.Ws.2 to 3 on her behalf, however, she did not adduce any documentary evidence on her behalf. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below dismissed the H.M.O.P. No. 3 of 2005 filed by the appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights and allowed H.M.O.P. No.65 of 2006 filed by the respondent-wife for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant-husband. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-husband filed these appeals. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-husband and the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife and perused the impugned common order under appeal. The contention of the respondent-wife that the appellant-husband married her against her will and consent cannot be accepted, because pursuant to the complaint lodged by her parents, the respondent-wife appeared before the Commissioner of Police and stated that she married the appellant-husband willingly and that there was no force or coercion. Admittedly, the marriage of the appellant-husband with the respondent-wife took place on 09.02.2004. In the month of March, 2004, the respondent-wife went to her parents’ house. Though the appellant-husband contends that the parents of the respondent-wife poisoned the mind of the respondent-wife to forget the appellant-husband, the fact remains, it is the specific case of the respondent-wife, that during her stay for about one month in the house of the appellant-husband, she was subjected to cruelty both physical and mental, that they forced her to withdraw the amounts lying in her bank account and harassed her to bring dowry. The Court below upon appreciation of the evidence found that since the respondent-wife was harassed by the appellant-husband and his parents, she left the company of the appellant-husband and went to her parents’ house. Though the appellant- husband contended that he made unsuccessful efforts through elders to bring back the respondent-wife to his marital fold, the fact remains, P.Ws. 2 and 3, whom the appellant-examined, did not support his version and they admitted that they did not talk to the father of respondent-wife. The Court below further found that the respondent-wife, who made a statement before the police that she would not claim any properties from her parents, and who supported the appellant-husband before the Commissioner of Police, pursuant to the complaint lodged by her parents, by stating that she married the appellant-husband voluntarily would not have ventured to leave his company, had she been taken care of well by the appellant- husband and his parents. Further the Court below disbelieved the contention of the appellant-husband that the parents of the respondent-wife poisoned her mind, because R.Ws. 2 and 3, whom the respondent-wife examined stated that the parents of the respondent-wife have no objection if she stays with the appellant-husband. Since the appellant-husband and his parents treated the respondent-wife with cruelty, the appellant-husband is not entitled to the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Since the respondent-wife is not interested to live with the appellant-husband because of the harassment meted out to her by the appellant-husband and his parents and is apprehending danger to her life, she is entitled to grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the common order under appeal passed by the Court below dismissing the H.M.O.P. filed by the appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights and allowing H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent-wife for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant-husband. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeals, and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Dated: 30.11.2011 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.Nos.386 & 458 of 2008 (Common Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 30.11.2011 Nn