T. Meena Kumari, J.
1.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.P. No. 24 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovali, dated 9.5.1997 allowing the same.
2. The appellant is the wife.
3. The husband filed O.P. No. 24 of 1995 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights. The allegations in the OP were that the petitioner Kakani Lakshmaiah married the respondent Kakani Sujatha on 1.8.1992 in Sri Mallikarjunaswamy Kamakshitai Temple, Jonnawada as per the Hindu customs and traditions. The respondent joined the petitioner in his house at Viswanadharaopet, The first wife of the petitioner died in the year 1985 leaving the petitioner and his six daughters and one son. The respondent was also married another woman and her marriage was dissolved by way of a decree of divorce. By the date of marriage of petitioner, he got married his three daughters begot through his first wife and he intended to perform the marriage of his 4th daughter and settled the alliance in August 1993. The fourth daughter of the petitioner has been residing along with them. Some disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to marriage of 4th daughter. In the month of February, 1993 the parents of respondent came to the petitioner's house to take her to Vidavalur and promised that they would send her back after some days. But they did not send the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner personally requested the respondent to come and live with them. But she did not come in spite of his personal requests. After some time the petitioner sent mediators Bochu Ramachandraiah and Mamidala Sankaraiah of Bitragunta and Ulavapalla respectively. But the attempts of mediators also failed as the respondent's mother and brother Subrahmanyam abused and told them that they will send the respondent only after the completion of marriages of all the daughters of petitioner. As the respondent did not come, the petitioner got issued a notice on 1.8.1993. The petitioner again got issued another notice on 9.6.1994 requesting the respondent to join him. But the respondent got it returned. Hence OP was filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent filed counter admitting the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and admitting the petitioner's first wife having 7 children. The respondent denied the petitioner's claim of sending mediators Bochu Ramachandraiah and Sankaraiah. She also denied the sending of notice on 24.7.1993. It was further contended by the respondent that her parents presented cash of Rs. 5,000/-towards dowry and marriage expenses and presented all the house hold articles like cots, steel vessels about Rs. 5,000/-. Though the respondent is looking after the petitioner and his children with great love and affection, the petitioner used to scold her and beat her indiscriminately on the ground that she did not get money from her parents whenever required by him. The respondent went to her parents house in Vidavalur having waited for 21/2 years for a change in the attitude of the petitioner. It was further contended that the petitioner left the respondent in the house of one Subbaramireddy and Peddamma on one occasion and later the mediators advised the respondent to go to her parents house. Since then the petitioner did not take the respondent. It was further contended that the petitioner wrote several letters to the brother of the respondent to provide money for his necessities.
4. On behalf of the petitioner-husband PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondent-wife RWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked.
5. It is the evidence of PW-1 that it has been agreed in the presence of elders at the time of marriage that he will give 4 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- cash to the respondent and that after marriage the said 4 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- cash and the house belonging to the respondent and 8 sovereigns of gold shall be kept in joint account of the petitioner and respondent and the respondent-wife did not deposit the same as agreed. According to the evidence, the elders are Kasani Koteswararao, Nunnamsreeramulu, Kanta Kodandaramaiah and Gundalapalem Ramanaiah. The mediators on behalf of the respondent-wife are Nallapalli Pushpamma, brothers and their mother. It was his evidence that after this incident the respondent-wife quarrelled with his 4th daughter and thereafter parents of the respondent came and took her to their house and at that time Nallaballi Pushpamma supported her. It was also his further evidence that in the month of July, 1993 he got issued a notice to the respondent-wife to come and join his association. The respondent-wife refused to receive the notice. In the month of June, 1994 the petitioner sent another notice to the respondent-wife to come and join him but the said notice was got returned. Office copy of notice dated 24.7.1993 was Ex.A1 and refused notice was Ex.A2. It was his further evidence that he had given Rs. 50,000/- to his first daughter and five sovereigns of gold at the time of her marriage. He has denied the factum of any cruelty towards his wife and also demand of money.
6. PW-3 is one of the mediators and he has stated that he tried to sort out the differences between the parties and he has stated that petitioner-husband agreed to give an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent-wife, to keep the same in a joint account. But however, he has not enquired into whether the wife has deposited any amount in the joint account. He also spoke about giving of four sovereigns of gold to the respondent-wife. He also spoke about the understanding between the parties to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the joint account.
7. Wife was examined as RW-1. In her evidence she has stated that her husband left her in the house of one Kasam Subbaramireddi with the clothes and afterwards she sent mediators one Koppulu Subrahmanyam and Mudugu Harinarayana to the house of the petitioner-husband but he refused to take her back. She has also stated that 'I have no belief and confidence that he will look after me and he married me for money. All my clothes are in the house of petitioner-husband and he left me in the house of Kasam Subbaramireddi with the clothes.' She has denied the understanding between the parties to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the joint account. It is also her evidence that she has not received the first notice dated 24.7.1993. According to the appellant-wife, MC No. 12 of 1995 is pending on the file of Munsif Magistrate and subsequently it was dismissed.
8. After recording the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court has proceeded with the matter and allowed the petition directing the wife-appellant herein to join the company of husband with a condition that the husband should not demand the wife-appellant to deposit any money in the joint account and she shall look after the needs of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-wife preferred the present appeal.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-wife submits that the husband has left her in the house of one Kasam Subbaramireddy with clothes and afterwards she has sent mediators Koppulu Subrahmanayam and Mudugu Harinarayana but the respondent-husband refused to take her back. However, the record shows that the appellant-wife has not chosen to examine mediators Koppulu Subrahmanayam and Mudugu Harinarayana to prove her case. It is her case that the respondent-husband married her only for money. In the counter she has stated that her husband married her only to bring money to clear off his debts. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on either side that mediations took place and the respondent-husband had left the appellant-wife in the house of Kasam Subbaramireddi, the version of appellant-wife remains un-supported and the same cannot be believed. Had the respondent-husband left the appellant-wife in the house of Kasam Subbaramireddy, the appellant-wife should have examined Kasam Subbaramireddy and also the mediators in support of her case. In the absence of such evidence, it has to be concluded that she only left the company of the husband. Therefore, the respondent-husband is entitled to seek restoration of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.
10. In the above circumstances, the order of the Court below needs no interference and accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. No costs.