K.Nageswararao, S/O. Chandra Sekharam, Vs. K. Saileswari, W/O.Nageswara Rao, Aged - Court Judgment

THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.7 OF201402-01-2014 K.Nageswara Rao, S/o.

Chandra Sekharam, aged about 64 yeaRs.Retired Lecturer, Residing at 18/646, Yasin Sahib Street, Near Z.P.Office, Nellore, PSR Nellore District ...Appellant K.

Saileswari, W/o.

Nageswara Rao, Aged about 58 yeaRs.House wife, D.No.23/64, Mulapet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.Respondent Counsel for the Appellant :Sr.O.

Manohar Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sr.V.

Narayana Reddy : : ?.Citations: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.7 OF2014JUDGMENT

: (Per Hon'ble Sr.Justice L.

Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.240 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Nellore, is the appellant.

He filed the O.P.against the respondent for divorce under Section 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, 'the Act').The trial Court dismissed the O.P.through order, dated 16.08.2013.

Hence, this appeal.

The appellant pleaded that his marriage with the respondent was performed on 04.06.1972 and that the respondent deserted him in the third week of August, 1972 and again on 25.09.1972 by picking up quarrel.

He stated that he made efforts to get the respondent back, but on failure of the efforts, he had approached the Family Court for divorce.

He has also stated that the respondent filed O.P.No.6 of 1977 in the Court of Principal District Munsiff, Nellore, for maintenance and that the same was compromised and O.S.No.621 of 1979 filed by the respondent for the same relief was also compromised on 17.06.1981, providing for payment of maintenance at Rs.140/- per month.

He ultimately pleaded for divorce stating that they are living separately for the past 29 years and that the marriage has broken irretrievably.

The respondent filed written statement admitting her marriage with the appellant.

She, however, stated that she had to leave the matrimonial house, on account of the ill treatment meted by the appellant and his mother.

She alleged that the appellant married several women over the period and his illegal activities have even been reported in press also.

She has also furnished the names of the women, whom the appellant is said to have married as well as the details of certain proceedings.

Sr.O.

Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the respondent left the company of the appellant way back in the year 1972 and in spite of his efforts to get her back, she did not agree.

He contends that the ground of desertion is proved beyond reasonable doubt and still the trial Court did not grant the decree of divorce.

Sr.V.

Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent had to leave the home of the appellant, unable to bear the harassment caused to her by the appellant and his mother.

He contends that the appellant is a person bereft of any character and there is enormous evidence to prove that the appellant married or unlawfully lived with several other women during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent, and that the trial Court has taken into account the relevant facts, and dismissed the O.P.The O.P.was filed by pleading the ground of desertion alone.

The trial Court has framed only point for its consideration, namely, ".Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion?.".

The appellant deposed as PW.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A11.

The respondent deposed as RW.1 and she filed Exs.B1 to B9.

The trial Court dismissed the O.P.through order, dated 16.08.2013.

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, ".Whether the appellant proved the ground of desertion on the part of the respondent?.".

There is no denial of the fact that the appellant and the respondent started living separately for more than two decades.

In the normal course, that itself should constitute a ground for granting divorce.

However, if the respondent was driven out from the house and the appellant indulged in nefarious activities, as pleaded by the respondent, the latter cannot be made to suffer the penalty.

The plea of the respondent that she left the house of the appellant way back in the year 1972, unable to bear the harassment caused to her by the appellant and his mother, virtually remained unrebutted.

Further, if the appellant was sincere enough to get back the respondent, he ought to have filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act.

He did not do so.

The very fact that he compromised the suits filed for maintenance on two occasions and agreed to pay maintenance, discloses that he tacitly admitted that the respondent is justified in living separately.

There is nothing on record to disclose that the respondent had ever resisted any attempt made by the appellant to live with her.

The very fact that except the appellant, none else was examined as a witness, shows the weakness of the case of the respondent.

Added to that, the appellant himself admitted that he not only lived with one Sujatha, but also begot four children through her.

He has also admitted that he changed the nomination in the service records by replacing the name of the respondent, with that of some other woman.

Before that, he indulged in immoral activity of living with other women.

A news item was published (Ex.B9).wherein it was mentioned that the appellant herein had married as many as nine women with deceitful means and when he was making effort to marry another woman, his nefarious activity came to light.

No Court can extend its helping hand to the person with such hopelessly bad character.

The effort of the appellant appears to be only, to deprive the respondent of any benefits on account of her being his wife and to pave the way for another woman.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondent.

If the appellant fails to pay the amount to the respondent within three months from today, the same shall have charge upon his pensionary benefits.

There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

___________________ L.

NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

______________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J.

02.01.2014