IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH::
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.696 OF 2002 Between:
Chinamanagonda Rama Devi . Appellant AND Chinamangonda Ranga Rao . Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.696 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per GVS, J) This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-09-2001 in O.P.No.49 of 1998, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, the husband, under Section 13(1)(ib) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and mental disorder, was allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records.
3. The respondent herein, the husband, filed the application seeking dissolution of the marriage that was solemnized on 24-08-1994 at Markapur. It is not disputed that the appellant herein joined the respondent and they lived happily for some time and subsequently disputes arose between them. According to the respondent, the wife insisted that the respondent shall get separated from his family and live in a different locality and owing to the pressure, the husband agreed for the said proposal and they lived separately away from the joint family for about three months. The husband alleges that the wife used to leave the house very often without informing him or his parents and was staying at her parents’ house at Cumbum and upon insisting that respondent should also visit to her parents house at Cumbum. According to him, the wife was very adamant and was ill-treating the husband and never cooperated with him. He further alleges that on 01- 01-1996, the wife quarrelled with him and threw her thali on his face and left for Cumbum and did not return and any amount of efforts made for reconciliation through elders proved futile. He further alleges that the wife told him on his face that she would never see his face again. The respondent further alleges that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental disorder, and that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. The said plea was raised by way of amendment to the petition, which was allowed as per orders dated 08-08-2000 in I.A.No.517 of 2000.
4. The appellant-wife filed a counter opposing the petition and contending that she never deserted the husband and it was the husband who neglected to look after her and sent her out of the house. She also expressed her readiness and willingness to join the husband and live with him.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following issues for consideration:
i) Whether the respondent/wife deserted the petitioner/husband continuously for a period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition?
ii) Whether the respondent/wife has been suffering continuously from mental disorder i.e., Schizophrenia of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner/husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her? and
iii) To what relief?
6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the respondent-husband. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the wife and no documents were marked.
7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge held on point No.1 that the wife voluntarily deserted the husband and without any reasonable or justifiable cause. The learned Senior Civil Judge further held that the wife has been suffering from mental disorder viz., schizophrenia and the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. Accordingly, on both grounds of desertion and mental disorder, the learned Senior Civil judge granted dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent by a decree of divorce.
8. It is not disputed that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 24-08- 1994 at Markapur. According to the respondent-husband, the wife was frequently going away to her parents’ house in Cumbum without informing him and upon her insistence he had separated from his joint family and in spite of it, she continued her frequent trips to her parents’ house at Cumbum on some pretext or the other without informing him and finally 01-01-1996, the wife threw her thali at him and went away and never returned.
9. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, found that in spite of the efforts made by the husband on his own and through the elders, the wife did not return and, on the other hand, she bluntly refused to rejoin the husband. P.Ws.2 to 4, the elders, also supported the version of P.W.1, the husband, that it was the wife who had left the matrimonial home without any valid or justifiable cause and did not return. The evidence on record also established that on 01-01-1996 the wife quarrelled with the husband and left the house by throwing the thali on his face and she never returned thereafter. After waiting for nearly two and half years and making efforts through elders in the meanwhile, the husband had ultimately filed the present application, as his efforts to get back the wife proved futile. The finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge that it was only the wife who deserted the husband voluntarily without any reasonable or justifiable cause, which finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, does not call for any interference by this Court.
10. Regarding the other ground of mental disorder, apart from testifying himself as P.W.1 regarding the various acts of the wife on account of the disease i.e., schizophrenia she was suffering from, the respondent also examined P.W.5 Dr.R.K.Ayodya, Psychiatrist of Sri Manasa Psychiatric Nursing Home, Vijayawada where the wife had undergone treatment and he also produced Ex.A-1 the case history of the patient showing the investigation done on various dates and the medical prescriptions and the medical adivses given to her.
Ex.A-2 is the certificate issued by P.W.5 whereunder he advised the patient to take treatment for one or two years and Exs.A-3 to A-6 are the prescription slips. The medical evidence on record, particularly the testimony of P.W.5, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, clearly established that the wife was suffering from schizophrenia and she was treated as inpatient in Manasa Psychiatric Nursing Home on several occasions. P.W.5 further testified that in spite of treatment there was no change for the better in the behaviour of the wife and the disease has become chronic and it is a relapsing disorder and there was no improvement in the condition of the patient. The finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge which is based not only on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 but also the medical evidence of P.W.5 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 to the effect that the wife has been suffering from mental disorder viz., schizophrenia and it is of such kind and such an extent that the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with wife, does not, therefore, call for any interference. Both the grounds viz., the desertion by the wife and the mental disorder suffered by her as alleged by the husband have thus been duly established on evidence adduced on behalf of the husband. On the contra, the wife was not examined at all and no evidence was also adduced on her side except examining R.W.1 one K.Kotaiah, who is father of the appellant, to counter the evidence adduced by the respondent herein and prove the contra. In the absence of any such rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/wife, the evidence adduced by the respondent- husband in support of the allegations of desertion and mental disorder, remained virtually unshaken. The learned Senior Civil Judge is, therefore, justified in relying on the said evidence, which remained unrebutted for granting the relief prayed for. The impugned order dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent that took place on 24-8-1994 by a decree of divorce, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court.
11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
B.PRAKASH RAO, J
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
21st January, 2010 Lrkm/Bss.