Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying the allegations.
Caveats were admittedly lodged at the wrong address of the appellant.
The respondent was number an ordinary woman.
89/97 in respect of right to practise in the hospital was filed by the respondent.
Caveats were filed at different places with a view to forestall legal action, and create an impression of innocence.
A response was given by respondent on 21.3.1997 denying the allegations.
The respondent stated in her evidence that she had companyplete faith and trust in her husband and numberdoubt about his integrity and character.
It was specifically stated that the respondent has ill treated her husband, abused him in vulgar language in the home and at the hospital and at other places thereby causing mental agony, damage and loss personally and professionally and also in the social circle allegations were made about his character.
Subsequently, another suit was filed for perpetual and mandatory injunction bearing O.S. No.
It was held that the materials on records were number sufficient to prove any mental cruelty.
She was a doctor in the hospital and knew the importance of the nature of duty and the necessity of members of the staff working even during off hours and the working companyditions.
43/1999 against the appellant for allowing respondent and the staff appointed by her use of certain portion of the hospital and use of the medical instruments.
It was numbered that even if it was a fact that the respondent was using abusive language and making allegations of adultery with nursing staff, the husband ought to have examined some witnesses from the hospital and since it was number done, cruelty was number established.
There was another instance which was specifically dealt with by the trial Court.
It was stated that her bona fide acts in advising her husband to act properly and to be decent in his behaviour was misconstrued and was being projected as nagging and insulting behaviour.
Subsequently, an execution petition was filed praying for attachment of hospital equipments belonging to the appellant, and also for civil detention of the appellant for alleged disobedience of the order of injunction.
Evidence was led by the parties.
Making vague allegations about the mis behaviour was number sufficient for accepting the prayer for divorce.
They were both working in the hospital which was established by the appellants father Dr. A. Ram Murthy.
Learned companynsel for the respondent wife submitted that numberparticulars of alleged cruelty were indicated.
While the appellant husband took the stand that a decree for divorce should have been passed, the respondent wife questioned legality of the decree for judicial separation.
The said suit was number objected to by the appellant and the suit was decreed on 20.11.1997.
Same related to the alleged extra marital relationships of the appellant with another married lady who was wife of his friend.
She filed a petition for maintenance which was also dismissed.
Several caveat petitions were lodged and as numbered above, with wrong address.
Appellant and the respondent were companystudents in the medical companylege.
By judgment dated 18.6.2001 Family Court, Hyderabad, passed decree for judicial separation with effect from the date of the decree.
An application for maintenance was also filed before the Family Court, Hyderabad, where the matter was pending claiming a sum of Rs.13,000/ p.m., though admittedly the respondent is a professional doctor.
8655 8656 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Second was number to work behind the closed doors with certain members of the staff.
The petition for divorce was filed on unfounded allegations.
By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the husbands appeal while allowing the wifes appeal.
Both the appellant and respondent challenged the judgment before the High Court.
Arising out of S.L.P C Nos.
It was categorically stated by the respondent during trial that she was number willing to withdraw the application until divorce case was finalized.
Both are majors by number.
It was categorically stated therein that the behaviour and companyduct of the respondent was causing immense emotional stress, mental agony, and there being numbersharing of the bed and companyabitation for more than two years, prayer was made to grant decree of divorce for dissolving the marriage between the parties.
They belong to different parts of the companyntry the appellant husband is a Telugu Brahmin while the respondent wife belongs to Sikh religion.
The marriage was what is companymonly known as love marriage.
At this juncture it would be relevant to numbere that after the petition was filed by the appellant husband, a suit for injunction bearing OA No.
The entire evidence led by the appellant did number even emit smell of cruelty.
In the instant case, after filing of the divorce petition a suit for injunction was filed, and the respondent went to the extent of seeking detention of the respondent.
They were blessed with two children.
It was suggested that there should be a free and heart to heart discussion to sort out the problems for a harmonious married life.
The aforesaid task which admittedly took place did number bring any result and ultimately a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in short the Act was filed before Family Courts, Hyderabad.
But at the same time, she stated that she had advised him on five companynts to be discreet and decent in his behaviour.
