Dismissed

P.Badrinath v. Patibandla Kameswari

Telangana HC10 Jun 2013CMA/546/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute, the appellant sought restitution of conjugal rights after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the appellant's intoxication and harassment justified her separate residence. This conviction of the upper court dismissed the appeal, leaving the matter open for the appellant to attempt reform.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The matter is left open for the appellant to attempt reform of his habits to seek the respondent's company in the future.

P.Badrinath Vs Patibandla Kameswari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

C.M.A.No.546 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The appellant is the husband of the respondent. They were married in the year 1999 and were blessed with a female child in the year 2000. Both of them were living at Vijayawada.

¶5

The appellant filed M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the respondent, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’), for restitution of conjugal rights. He pleaded that the respondent left the house in the year 2001, without any valid justification and that she has been insisting that the appellant should come to the house of her parents as ‘illatom’. He stated that when he did not accede to the demand, the respondent filed C.C.No.458 of 2003 under Section 498-A of I.P.C.; M.C.No.50 of 2003 in the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, for maintenance, and O.S.No.3 of 2006 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for partition through their child. He contends that the respondent has no justification to deny the conjugal rights to him.

¶6

The respondent filed a counter, opposing the M.V.O.P. She pleaded that the appellant is habituated to bad habits, including that of intoxication and he totally neglected her and their daughter. It was also stated that all efforts made by her to convince the appellant to give up the bad habits, proved futile and left with no alternative, she is residing

¶7

in the house of her parents.

¶8

Through its order, dated 08.12.2010, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶10

Hardly for a period of two years, the appellant and the respondent lived together. Thereafter, they started living separately. In case, the respondent did not join the company of the appellant without any justification, he is certainly entitled for a decree under Section 9 of the Act.

¶11

Before the trial Court, the appellant examined PWs.1 and 2 and filed a bunch of letters addressed by the respondent, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined. The trial Court found that the appellant did not make out a case for a decree.

¶12

In matters of this nature, the oral evidence will be mostly oath against oath. The appellant has been pleading that the respondent went away from the matrimonial home without any justification. However, Exs.P.1 to P.10, letters addressed by the respondent, throw light on the entire controversy. In all the letters, she implored upon the appellant to give up the vice of intoxication. She stated that under the intoxicated condition, the appellant was harassing her beyond any level of tolerance. The instances mentioned therein not only provide justification for her to live separately, but also disclose the cruel and animal tendencies of the appellant. As long as those tendencies continue with the appellant, no human being would feel like going near

¶13

to him. The appellant did not deny the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.10. Unless he changes his habits and way of life, he cannot expect the respondent to come to him. Even now, he can think of becoming sane than continuing with his beastly habits. As the things stand now, we do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. However, in case the petitioner changes his habits, and convinces the respondent about the change in him, he can require her to join his company and pursue remedies in accordance with law, depending on the response.

¶14

Hence, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, left open to the appellant to make his efforts to get the company of the respondent, if he gives up his bad habits and satisfies the respondent that he is no longer addicted to the vices. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶17

___________ S.V.BHATT, J.

¶18

Dated:10.06.2013 GJ

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶20

C.M.A.(sr)No.51176 of 2011 (judgment of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶21

Date:10.06.2013

¶22

P.Badrinath v. Patibandla Kameswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Badrinath v. Patibandla Kameswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rajeswar.Secbad. Vs Smt.G.Laxmi Narasa.Secbad.

M/s. Sai Motors, a firm situated at Hyderabad Road, beside Vs Katapalli Raja Reddy

Dr. Swarna Mandava Vs M/s. Vishnu Housing (P) Ltd.

Mr.Madhu Kumar My Vs Smt.Hima Bindu

Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam Ltd., Vs M/s. P.L.Raju Constructions Ltd.

In Re.. Vs Sri B.Gautam Prasad