THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.63 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant.

Though Sri Y.Narapa Reddy, learned counsel, filed vakalat for respondent No.1, there is no representation on his behalf.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is taken up for hearing at the stage of admission.
The present Family Court Appeal came to be filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the order, dated 28.12.2017, passed in M.O.P.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam wherein the application filed by the appellant/husband against respondent No.1/wife under Section 10(1)(i)(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking dissolution of marriage between them was dismissed with costs.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 took place on 16.5.2006 at Bible Mission Church, Srikakulam. It is stated that both of them lived happily for a period of one year and thereafter, disputes arose between them. After completing the degree, respondent No.1 joined M.B.A. and the appellant provided all monetary facilities. On 29.12.2017, they were blessed with one daughter by name Sophia. It is averred in the application that respondent No.1 used to spend

more time at her parents' house and behave as per the directions of her parents. Respondent No.1 gave a police report on 31.12.2008 to create fear in the mind of appellant's family. Respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home and spent two months at her parents' house. After counseling in the Women Police Station, Srikakulam, she joined the appellant. On 01.01.2009, respondent No.1 got appointment as an Associate in State Bank of India, Narasannapeta. Respondent No.1 used to spend money for her parents and never spent any amount for the appellant or her children. Their second daughter – Smyrna was born on 02.01.2011. Later, respondent No.1 was transferred from Narasannapeta to Srikakulam Main Branch, S.B.I. and she used to spend more time at her parents' house and attend the appellant's house at late nights. Later, respondent No.1 developed extra-marital relationship with one Sivaram and neglected the appellant and did not cooperate to lead conjugal life with him. On 22.2.2014, respondent No.1 left from the house of the appellant. The appellant used to provide school fees, clothes etc to his children. Respondent No.1 and the said Sivaram used to have heinous conversations in the cell phone. When the appellant questioned her, she used to reply adamantly due to which, the reputation of the appellant was damaged.

Though various grounds are raised, a perusal of the material on record would show that the alleged adulterer - Sivaram was not made a party to the proceedings before the trial Court along with respondent No.1/wife of the appellant. In view of the above, the trial Court rightly said that the said application itself is not maintainable.
In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it would be just and proper to have a look at the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
The petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1. He filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of examination in chief reiterating the pleadings in the petition filed by him. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent developed extra marital relationship with her co-employee by name S.Shivaram, who is also working in her branch, and she used to spend lot of time talking with him on cell phone and when he questioned about it, she used to blackmail him stating that she will give police report against him and his family members. Later, it was placed before the elders but there was no change in her attitude. The petitioner also addressed letters to A.G.M., State Bank of India, Srikakulam about the behaviour of the respondent with S.Shivaram.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he deposed that there were some petty quarrels between P.W.1 and his wife. P.W.1 informed that the respondent developed illegal intimacy with S.Shivaram. Himself and one B.Prakash approached the respondent and advised her to live with P.W.1. properly but she did not heed to their words. After filing the application for divorce by P.W.1, the respondent approached said Shivaram and demanded him to marry her but he did not come forward to marry her and on that, the respondent gave a report to the Station House Officer, Rural Police Station, which came to be registered as Crime No.90 of 2017, which discloses that she had extra marital relationship with the said Shivaram. But P.W.2 did not file any copy of the said report in support of his case.
From a scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-4, it is clear that the appellant failed to establish his case.
For the reasons stated above, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, as the appellant herein could not show any material, which warrants interference with the order of the trial Court.
Accordingly, this Family Court Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Family Court Appeal shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

Date : 24.11.2021 AMD