Telangana High Court
A.Janardhana Chary vs Smt.Prakruthamba Latha on 20 April, 2022
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther, Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1413 of 2008
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Dr.Justice Shameem Akther) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") is filed by the appellant/ husband, challenging the order dated 24.11.2006, passed in O.P.No.6 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the subject O.P filed by the appellant/ husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent/wife, was dismissed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/husband, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/wife would contend that though there is sufficient evidence to substantiate that there was adultery as well as cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife, the Court below failed to consider the same and erroneously, dismissed the subject O.P. The Court below ought to have allowed the subject O.P and ultimately prayed to set aside 2 the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 and allow the subject O.P filed by the appellant/husband, as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ wife would contend that the appellant/husband had alleged adultery but there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Further, the appellant/husband denied the paternity of the child. At the instance of appellant/husband, the boy was subjected to DNA test with consent of the respondent/wife and Ex.C.1 is the DNA report dated 22.11.2005. Ex.C.1 demonstrates that the appellant herein is the biological father and respondent herein is the biological mother of the boy by name Udaya Kiran Chary. There is no iota of evidence to substantiate the cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife and the Court below having analysed the entire evidence in correct perspective, was pleased to dismiss the subject O.P and there are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Court below and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. In view of the above rival submissions, the point for determination in this appeal is:
"Whether the appellant/husband is entitled for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, as prayed for?"3
6. POINT: As seen from the entire material placed on record, the appellant herein and respondent herein got married on 11.03.2001 and they begot a male child on 22.12.2001 i.e, after 9 months 11 days from the date of marriage. At the instance of the appellant, the boy was subjected to DNA test with the consent of respondent and the DNA report dated 22.11.2005 is marked as Ex.C.1. Ex.C.1 demonstrates that appellant herein is the biological father and the respondent herein is the biological mother of the said child by name Udaya Kiran Chary. PW.2- A.Anjaneyulu, examined on behalf of appellant did not speak about any desertion on the part of the respondent. He simply stated that the respondent/wife used to go to her parents' house and stay there. As seen from the date of marriage between the appellant and respondent and the date of birth of the child and also evidence of PW.2, absolutely there is no evidence to substantiate the alleged adultery. There is no iota of evidence to substantiate that any cruelty was meted out to the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife. The Court below had dealt with the grounds on which the appellant sought divorce and arrived at a conclusion that those grounds are not proved. So as seen from the entire evidence and other material on record, the grounds alleging adultery as well as cruelty, have not been made 4 out by the appellant. Under these circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Court below. This appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J ____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 20.04.2022 scs