THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY F.C.A. No. 155 of 2006 Date: 14.9.2009 Between: Boyapati Raghu ..... APPELLANT AND Boyapati Charitha .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY F.C.A. No. 155 of 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V. Seethapathy) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the order of the Judge, Family Court, dated 17.11.2006 made in O.P. No. 709 of 2004, whereby the learned Judge allowed the O.P. filed for dissolution of marriage. The facts in brief are that the appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent-wife filed O.P.No.709 of 2004 against her husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage. The respondent pleaded in the O.P. that her marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 19.9.2000 in Thiruvur Town, Krishna District. She is the elder daughter of her parents and she was having one sister. At the time of marriage, her father gave Rs.1,25,000/- as dowry in cash; gold ornaments weighing 170 gms. and household articles worth of Rs. 25,000/-. According to her, the marriage was consummated in the month of March, 2000. She stated that the appellant is a greedy, sadistic and selfish person and used to suspect her fidelity. He also used to harass her for additional dowry and used to abuse her parents. He became alcoholic and used to force her also to consume alcohol. While so, her father died on 2.6.2001 and at the time of obsequies, he demanded for giving more gold articles in the presence of her relatives and also pledged four bangles and chandraharam of her and did not redeem the same. Having vexed with the attitude of the appellant, she went back to her parents’ house in the year 2001 and in order to stand on her own legs, she joined in Multi Media course at Hyderabad. While so, in the month of March, 2004, there was a mediation by some elders and in that mediation, the appellant promised to return the entire dowry amount, gold articles and other house hold articles to the respondent by the end of June, 2004. However, the appellant did not keep up the said promise and on the other hand started harassing and threatening her to join his company. He also started pressurizing her parents for sending her along with him. The respondent, therefore, lodged a private complaint before the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant. Subsequently, she filed the present O.P., impugned in this appeal. While opposing the contentions, the appellant filed counter before the Family Court stating that the respondent started harassing him for silly reasons on the ground that the marriage was performed against her will. The respondent never used to prepare food and even the household chores are done by his aged mother. She was not interested in staying along with him at Thiuvuru and used to demand him for shifting the residence to Hyderabad. However, he did not agree for the same as he had to look after the agricultural operations and lorry business. The respondent wanted to prosecute further studies and on account of the marriage, she could not pursue the same and therefore she left the matrimonial home on 18.6.2001 and ever since she has been staying with her parents and all the efforts made by him to bring her back have proved futile. Finally, he filed O.P. No. 45 of 2004 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District seeking restitution of conjugal rights. When the respondent failed to appear before the said Court, an ex-parte decree was passed on 29.11.2004. Subsequently, the respondent lodged a private complaint against the appellant before Amberpet Police Station and the same is stated to be pending. He also denied the allegation that he is evading return of dowry and gold ornaments and on the other hand is trying to take her along with him. He, therefore, pleaded that the petition be dismissed. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the respondent subjected the petitiner to harassment and cruelty ? 2. Whether Ex.P1 settlement is true, valid and binding on the respondent ? 3. What is the effect of ex-parte decree in O.P. 45/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 29.11.2004 in favour of the respondent ? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent that took place on 19.2.2000 ? having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner ? 5. To what relief ? On behalf of the respondent-petitioner, P.ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 & P2 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-respondent, the appellant got himself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs. R1 and R2. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court held that the respondent is entitled for the decree of dissolution of marriage and accordingly allowed the O.P. No. 799 of 2004 filed by her. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-husband filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Let us now deal with the evidence on record. P.W.1 is the wife. In her evidence, she spoke about the contents of O.P.No.85 of 1995, which was filed by her, in detail. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the mediators, who spoke about the mediation that was held on 25.12.2004 to resolve the matrimonial dispute between P.W.1 and R.W.1 at Thiruvuru by the elders and the drafting of Ex.P1 settlement deed. It is also their evidence that in the mediation that took place on 25.12.2004, R.W.1 agreed to return cash given to his father , besides the jewellery and other items which were given to him at the time of marriage. He has also paid Rs. 1.00 lakh to P.W.2, the father of the appellant and also gave Rs.50,000/- to panchayat elders with a clear direction to deposit the same in the joint account of A. Srinivasa Rao and K. Mallikarjuna Rao. Further, the gold articles and other items belonging to P.W.1 were returned and R.W.1 also agreed to withdraw the O.P. filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights. However, nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of these witnesses to show that Ex.P1 is a created document and the signature of R.W.1 under Ex.P1 is not his. While rebutting the contentions, the appellant who got himself examined as R.W.1 has reiterated the very same contentions in his evidence and stated that the O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed ex-parte by the time the mediation took place on 25.12.2004. He further stated that he came to know abut Ex.P1, settlement which was reduced into writing on 25.12.2004 and Ex.P2, which is the pass book opened in the joint account of Alapati Srinivasa Rao and K. Mallikarjuna Rao; about four months prior to his deposition. Though he admitted about the signature under Ex.P1 as that of his, he however, gave evasive answer with regard to pledging of ornaments in Andhra Bank, Thiruvuru and the public auction notice given by the said bank . Therefore, on a perusal of the evidence of R.W.1 it is quite clear that though the appellant knew about the ex-parte decree passed in the O.P. filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights even prior to the mediation, he suppressed the said fact. That apart, there is no denial by the appellant that the signature under Ex.P1 was not his. He also did not deny about the settlement deed and also about the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- paid to P.W.2. In fact, P.W.4, who acted as mediator for the mediation that took place on 25.12.2004 for resolving the marriage dispute between the appellant and the respondent, had clearly deposed in his evidence about the document under Ex.P1 and under what circumstances it was brought into existence. Further it is not the version of the appellant that Ex.P1 was fabricated and the signature under Ex.P1 was not his. Therefore, having given our careful consideration to the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that all the aspects of the matter have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Judge, Family Court and the evidence on record has been properly appreciated with cogent and convincing reasons. The order of the learned Judge, Family Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. That apart, on 3.9.2009, in fact, in order to resolve the issue, we have also directed for the appearance of the parties and in pursuance of the said order, the parties have appeared before us. We tried to bring some reconciliation in the matter. However, the same could not be done as the respondent was unwilling and disinclined to join the appellant. She further stated that keeping in view the past conduct of the appellant, she would not trust him any more. Under the circumstances, we feel that there are absolutely no merits in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 14th September, 2009 ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J pnb