IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIH CMA NO. 2978 OF 2000 Between: Smt Ch. Dhanalakshmi W/o Satyanarayna Murthy ..... Appellant AND Sri Ch. Satyanarayana Murthy .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. PRAKASH RAO) This appeal at the instance of wife has been filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No. 9 of 1997 dated 12.7.2000 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, wherein and whereby, application filed under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act ,1956, seeking for dissolution of marriage was allowed. Brief fats of the case are that the marriage of the parties was performed by the elders in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites on 17.2.1979 in AmarajyothiKalyana Mandapam, Nallakunta, Hyderabad and they lived happily for a short period and thereafter disputes arose. Respondent- husband’s mother is an old woman and suffering from Cancer and undergoing treatment at Appolo Hospital, Hyderabad. As the younger brother of the respondent-husband died, his mother started living with him as he has no issues and he is a railway station master and he will be on duty around the clock. It is stated that the appellant-wife used to torture the respondent- husband even at his short stay in the house and she developed a habit of sending provisions and also money to her brothers. This resulted in inter disputes and ultimately the appellant-wife lodged a complaint against the respondent-husband for an offence under Section 498-A IPC alleging that respondent-husband is demanding dowry. Resisting the application of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband filed counter affidavit denying each and every allegation. It is stated that subsequently, the parties went into trial after framing the point for consideration and the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below held that the respondent-husband has proved the alleged guilt of the appellant-wife and he is entitled for dissolution of marriage as sought for. On behalf of appellant -wife she herself examined as RW-1 and another witness RW-2, her brother, was examined and no exhibits were marked. On behalf of respondent –husband he himself examined as PW-1 and his colleague was examined as PW-2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A4. The Court below after considering the entire material made available on record, accepted the version of the respondent-husband and found that he has been proved the alleged guilt and therefore, entitled for dissolution of marriage. Further, the appellant-wife was also provided with maintenance in an interlocutory application in I.A.No. 352 of 1998. Hence, the present appeal preferred by wife. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the material made available on record, there is absolutely no evidence of cruelty nor the respondent- husband has proved the same to grant such an extreme relief of divorce. The only point that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-husband is entitled for dissolution of marriage? It is no doubt true that the marriage of the parties was performed on 17.2.1979 under the Hindu customs and rites in Amarajyothikalyana Mandapam, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. It is also no doubt true that there are no children borne out of their wed lock and some disputes arose in between them as respondent-husband’s mother , who is suffering from cancer started living with them. Having regard to such circumstances, attributions are made by both the parties and cruelty of wife against respondent-husband was proved and therefore, we are not differing with the ultimate opinion given by the court below. Further the court below allowed the main OP on 12.7.2000 and there is application filed to suspend the operation of the said order. Having regard to the afore said circumstances and also the reasons mentioned, there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ B. PRAKAHS RAO,J _________________​______ G. CHANDRAIAH , J DATE: 04.11.2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies