B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.

1. This memorandum of Family Court Appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 assailing the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at L.B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in FCOP.No.684 of 2014, dated 11.09.2018.

2. Appellant is the respondent and respondent is the petitioner in FCOP.No.684 of 2014.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as appellant - husband and respondent - wife.

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant - husband submits that the learned Family Court grossly erred in awarding Rs.30,00,000/- payable by the appellant - husband to the respondent - wife without any reasoning. The learned Family Court having rejected the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the respondent-wife and the balance of her claim being only Rs.20,00,000/-, ought to have rejected the entire claim. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent - wife either in her petition or in her evidence has given no basis for the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- and also failed to appreciate that the respondent - wife admittedly is an employed person and therefore her claim for permanent alimony was untenable. Respondent - wife is well qualified person and has put in more than five years of service globally therefore the learned Family Court ought to have held that her claim for permanent alimony was wholly false and frivolous, grossly erred in drawing erroneous inference from the counter claim made by the respondent – wife in the proceedings for annulment of marriage initiated before USA court and came to unsustainable conclusion.

               4.2 The findings of the learned Family Court in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of its order is unsustainable and contrary to the material on record, awarded Rs.30,00,000/- without there being any evidence or reasoning. The findings of the learned Family Court with regard to the relationship between the parties and the reasons for grant of divorce is frivolous and substantiated, failed to appreciate that the impugned case itself was filed one year after the initiation of the proceedings before the USA Court to which the respondent - wife also submitted without demur and therefore the entire proceedings of the Family Court is nullity and illegality. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Y.Narasimha Rao and others vs. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another ((1991) 3 SCC 451) and (ii) Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel ((2024) 13 SCC 66).

5. Learned counsel for the respondent - wife submits that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground to take divorce by the appellant - husband which is not conclusive in India which cannot override the Indian matrimonial laws, parties have performed their marriage under Hindu Marriage Act and irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective, rightly granted divorce and awarded permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant - husband has filed synopsis in support of his contention.

7. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

8. Now the points for consideration are:

               (i) Whether the learned Family Court was justified in awarding permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent – wife by directing the appellant – husband to pay the same within one month from the date of order (dated 11.09.2018)

               (ii) Whether the order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require is interference of this Court.

Point No.1:

9.1 Respondent - wife has filed F.C.O.P. under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and for permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000/-.

               9.2 It is the case of the respondent - wife that her marriage with the appellant - husband is performed on 05.04.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and the same was registered on 07.04.2012. She did her Masters from American University, Civil Engineering from Hyderabad, worked in California company, US, till 2011 and she visited India in the month of October 2011. P.Govardhana Raju was the mediator on behalf of her husband in settling the marriage, two days after the marriage her husband returned to USA leaving her in India and asked her to wait for her visa. Her in-laws made it clear that she should join her husband on her own costs after obtaining H1 visa and also insisted her to learn SAP for one year. Marriage is not consummated. Though she tried to move closely with her husband, he avoided her and did not evince any interest. H1 visa was got delayed thereafter her in-laws started harassing her physically and mentally and also humiliated her about her appearance.

               9.3 She reached Texas in the month of May 2013 with a hope to lead marital life, her parents have borne the traveling expenses, but her hopes were lost soon after she entered into Dallas Airport. Immediately after landing at the airport, she went to restroom and returned back immediately, her husband picked up quarrel, insulted her that she went to meet another person with a plan to run away. She was with her husband in Dallas for a period of 10 days there she was treated like an animal, he did not provide anything for her to eat and she had to manage only with one meal. Her husband used to eat outside, drink daily and he also forced her to drink and tried to beat her when she refused to consume. Her husband used to move with his friends and made her life a hell in 10 days. She tried to get intimate with her husband and enquired about his problem, he was avoiding her and he never responded. Strangely, her father-in-law called her on phone and asked her about their bedroom life and advised that she should make sexual advances towards her husband by behaving like an American woman.

               9.4 Her husband has took her for a movie along with his friends but he sat along with his friends leaving her alone. She has questioned her husband why he has married her when he was incapable of consummating the marriage, he kept silent. Her husband used to doubt her conduct and used to share everything to his parents who in turn used to harass her with vulgar questions. In the month of May 2013, her husband started demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- for consummation of marriage, she revealed the same to her parents and about her pathetic life in USA. In the month of June 2013 her husband issued marriage annulment notice to her as per USA law and also sent another notice saying that he will pay $1000 for accepting the annulment, when she did not accept he sent third notice with all false allegations against her. Her husband was trying to scare her emotionally. Her parents have suffered monetary loss of Rs.20,00,000/-. She has lost all her dreams and beautiful future due to the sadistic attitude of her husband, he has to reimburse her, therefore she claimed divorce on the ground of cruelty and permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000/-. Her husband has 401000 US dollars in his savings bank account and earns 125000 dollars per annum, he is capable of paying the same.

10.1. Appellant - husband filed counter admitting the marriage and denied the other contents of the petition. He further contended that his wife after joining his company in USA did not cooperate with him for the reasons best known to her, she used to create a big scene and nuisance and suddenly without intimation she left his company on 26.05.2013, since then she did not join him. He tried to contact his wife and requested her to join his company and also informed her parents, but they gave evasive reply. His wife did not show any interest or inclination to join his company. Having failed in his attempts, he approached the District Court, Tarrant County Texas and filed a case for annulment of the marriage. His wife has engaged an attorney on her behalf and filed counter affidavit, she did not make any allegations against his parents. Court at USA has granted final decree of divorce on 08.05.2014. His wife having contested the matter at USA filed the OP before the Family Court through her mother as GPA making false allegations. His wife is having sufficient earnings, she is not entitled to claim permanent alimony.

               10.2 The prayer made in the counter is as under:

               ‘.. to pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 05.04.2012 solemnized between the respondent and petitioner however this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the relief sought by the petitioner in para-b for grant of sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner towards permanent alimony’

11. Respondent - wife is examined as PW1, examined her father K.Prithvi Raj as PW2, PW3 - V.Rajesham and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Appellant - husband is examined as RW1, examined his father as RW2 – S.Bhaskar Raju, examined RW3 - P.Govardhana Raju and got marked Ex.R1.

12. The learned Family Court after going through the evidence adduced by the parties granted divorce to the respondent - wife and directed the appellant - husband to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent – wife within one month from the date of the order [11.09.2018].

13.1 Since the appellant – husband has prayed to pass a decree of divorce, hence we are not referring to the evidence of the parties with regard to admitted facts.

               13.2 We will be referring to the evidence of the parties only to the extent of permanent alimony.

14. The evidence of the respondent - wife as PW1 is the same with that of her petition averments in respect of permanent alimony. In her cross-examination she stated that she went to USA in the year 2013 and returned in the month of April 2016, while staying in USA she was residing in the sharing room along with her friends, she did not attend any job as she has no proper visa. She denied the suggestion that while staying in USA she attended the job and earned money and that her husband is not earning Rs.1.25 lakh dollars per annum and that she is not entitled for permanent alimony.

15.1 PW2 is the father of PW1, he supported the case of his daughter in claiming permanent alimony from her husband.

               15.2 In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that his daughter is also an employee, earning sufficient amount and that the appellant need not pay any amount to his daughter towards permanent alimony and he is giving false evidence.

16. The evidence of the appellant - husband as RW1 is the replica of his counter in respect of permanent alimony claimed by his wife. In his cross-examination he stated that on an average he is earning about 60,000/- dollars per annum and he is not liable to pay permanent alimony to his wife.

17. RW2 - S.Bhaskar Raju is the father of RW1, his evidence is similar to that of his son. Through him Ex.R1 came to be marked. In his cross-examination he stated that it is not denied in the counter filed by his son that he is not earning 1,25,000 dollars per annum. He denied the suggestion that his son is earning 1,60,000/- US dollars per annum.

18. RW3 - P.Govardhana Raju is the person who acted as a mediator for the marriage of the parties his evidence is supporting the case of the appellant. In his cross-examination he stated that appellant has married another woman in America about two and half years back and blessed with a daughter, he do not know whether the second wife of the appellant is a citizen or not, he do not know why the appellant and his father did not reveal his second marriage. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.

19.1. Admittedly appellant - husband and respondent - wife marriage is performed on 05.04.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and their marriage is registered on 07.04.2012 under Ex.P1, certificate of marriage is issued under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

               19.2. Ex.P2 is the respondent – wife’s answers to the appellant – husband divorce petition for first set of interrogatories. She has stated in interrogatory No.8 that her husband has a bank/saving account of 401 [k] perhaps a pension that have accumulated value during the marriage. In interrogatory No.10 she stated as under:

               “I feel the Court should award me a just and right portion of any asset acquired by the community estate during the marriage, in accordance with Texas law. This includes, but is not limited to, funds allocated to Sharathhh's bank accounts, 401(k), pension plan, etc. I do not currently know the identity of each item of community property, as Sharathhh has never been forthcoming about these matters”.

In interrogatory No.19 she stated as under:

               “1. From the beginning Sharath is obviously obsessed with money, the main reason which he himself agreed many times. His intention was to marry only a working woman, who has to eventually shift career to SAP as it earns more billing.

               2. Aversion towards marriage and sexual life. He neither showed interest to talk to me nor responded to my presence. I never experienced any intimate feeling from him, either in his presence or on phone. I tried many a times to talk like a partner, express my feelings but Sharath constantly avoided such situations. I have doubts on his physical fitness for married life.

               3. Suspicious of me, constantly doubted and accuse me with adulterous relations with other men, throughout our relationship.

               4. Though we were distant, I made all efforts to get closer to him, suffered all his verbal attacks and suspicions. Inspite of mental torture from his household, especially from the abusive behavior of his father, I stayed in their house for significant months so that the gap between us will not be widened more. I respected the marriage, and wanted it work and therefore came to US. This was not an easy process either. He constantly resisted to accept me as his wife and dependent. He intentionally delayed in sponsoring H4 papers citing conditions that I must certify SAP exam, have my laser surgery to my face.

               5. He doesn't respect me as person. He has this typical male attitude which is beyond egoism and arrogance. He is highly relied on opinions formed by his friends and father. This was agreed by Naveen's wife, Madhavi as well, who told she is disturbed how Sharath shares things about me with Naveen and other friends and how all the men discuss about my relation and our sexual relationship”.

20. Insofar as grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- is concerned, the learned Family Court observed in its order at paragraph No.14, which reads as under:

               “It is found from the evidence of the petitioner that the respondent is working as software engineer in US and getting salary of about 1,25,000 US dollars and also got deposit of 4,01,000 US dollars in his account. That the respondent is capable of paying demanded compensation of Rs.40 Lakhs. It is also further contended that her father incurred expenses for the marriage to a tune of Rs.20 Lakhs and therefore, she prayed to grant compensation suitably.”

Further, the learned Family Court has observed in paragraph No.15, which reads as under:

               “Even R.W-1 and 2 did not state about income of the respondent and further when she has categorically mentioned in her petition about the income of the respondent that he was earning 1,25,000 US dollars per annum the same is not denied by the respondent or his father. Therefore, taking into consideration the financial status of the respondent and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner who is now aged 36 years and as she almost lost her youthful age without there being consummation of the marriage, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) is granted towards permanent alimony to the petitioner which would meet ends of justice. Directed the respondent to pay the same within one month from the date of this order. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.”

21.1 It is apt to note here that this Court has passed order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 on 26.12.2018 which reads as under:

               Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that although the appellant-husband is not aggrieved by the grant of divorce, he is aggrieved by the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife. According to the learned counsel, the learned Family Court is unjustified in concluding that "the appellant-husband has not denied his income as asserted by the respondent-wife". According to him, in his cross-examination, the appellant-husband has clearly stated that his income, on an average, is $60,000 per annum. Therefore, the learned Family Court is unjustified in granting a permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent-wife. Hence, this part of the judgment and decree should be stayed by this Court.

               On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has pleaded that the appellant-husband has not submitted any evidence to establish the fact that he is earning merely $60,000 per annum. Therefore, there is no clear cut denial of statement of the respondentwife that the appellant is, in fact, earning $1,25,000 per annum. Moreover, since the appellant-husband has already been granted the decree of divorce by a Court in Texas, U.S.A, since he is not aggrieved by the grant of divorce, and since the respondent-wife is unable to look after herself, she is entitled to receive permanent alimony from the appellant-husband. Therefore, the learned counsel has opposed the grant of stay of the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.09.2018.

               A bare perusal of the appellant's cross-examination clearly reveals that in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was earning $60,000 per annum. Although the said statement was made by the appellanthusband, he has not submitted any documentary proof to establish the said fact. Moreover, there is no specific denial of the claim made by the respondent-wife that, in fact, the appellant-husband is earning about $1,25,000 per annum. In the absence of a specific denial, and in the absence of documentary evidence to establish the appellant's defence, the learned Family Court is justified in accepting the assertion made by the respondent-wife. Therefore, the learned Family Court is justified in concluding that "the appellant-husband has not denied the assertion made by the respondent-wife".

               Further, the respondent-wife is entitled to permanent alimony in order to ensure that she continues to have the lifestyle which she was used to during her marriage. According to the respondent-wife, the appellanthusband is working as a Software Engineer in Texas, U.S.A; the respondent-wife had gone and stayed with him for some time in United States. Therefore, the respondent-wife is accustomed to an urban and upper class lifestyle.

               Considering the fact that the respondent-wife happens to be a 34 years young woman, considering the fact that the chances of re-marriage of a divorced woman are rather slim in this Country, and considering the fact that, on an average, the life expectancy in India is 77 years, there is a great possibility that she will live for another four decades. Therefore, the grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/- for a period of 40 years is not an unreasonable amount to be granted by the learned Family Court. Hence, the respondent-wife has a strong prima facie case for the grant of permanent alimony; the balance of convenience is also on her side. In case, she were to be deprived of permanent alimony, she will be left out in the cold. Therefore, an irreparable loss would be caused to her, if the stay were granted in favour of the appellanthusband.

               For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.09.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.684 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

               The application for grant of interim stay is hereby dismissed.

               However, it is hereby clarified that any observations made by this Court hereinabove shall not influence the final decision of this case.

               21.2 Appellant – husband aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 dated 26.12.2018 filed appeal before the Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.6592 of 2019 which came to be dismissed on 11.03.2019.

22.1. In Y.Narasimha Rao1 Supreme Court held that a Hindu marriage solemnized in India cannot be dissolved by a Foreign Court using a law or ground that is completely alien to the Hindu Marriage Act.

               22.2 In Kiran Jyot Maini2 Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos.24, 25 and 26 which reads as under:

               24. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Rajnesh v. Neha - [(2021) 2 SCC 324 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 749] , elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance. This judgment lays down a comprehensive framework for determining the quantum of maintenance in matrimonial disputes, particularly focusing on permanent alimony. The primary objective is to prevent the dependant spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy due to the failure of the marriage, rather than punishing the other spouse. The Court emphasises that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount; instead, it should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors. These factors include but are not limited to:

               (i) Status of the parties, social and financial.

               (ii) Reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children.

               (iii) Qualifications and employment status of the parties.

               (iv) Independent income or assets owned by the parties.

               (v) Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.

               (vi)Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.

               (vii) Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.

               (viii)Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

               25. The status of the parties is a significant factor, encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and financial background. The reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children must be assessed, including costs for food, clothing, shelter, education and medical expenses. The applicant's educational and professional qualifications, as well as their employment history, play a crucial role in evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency. If the applicant has any independent source of income or owns property, this will also be taken into account to determine if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the Court considers whether the applicant had to sacrifice employment opportunities for family responsibilities, such as child-rearing or caring for elderly family members, which may have impacted their career prospects.

               26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependants he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance all relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependant spouse can live with reasonable comfort post-separation.

23. To put a quietus to the litigation, we have directed both the parties to file their assets and liabilities as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha ((2021) 2 SCC 324 ) vide order dated 06.03.2026.

24.1 In pursuance of the above said order appellant – husband and respondent – wife have filed their assets and liabilities.

               24.2 Appellant – husband has filed additional material paper without filing application to receive additional evidence, since no application is filed we are not looking into the material filed therein.

25.1 Appellant – husband has filed his assets and liabilities on 10.03.2026, stated that his expenses are $5100.00 per month (Rent: $2500.00 + monthly expenses $ 2600.00), he is spending $ 1000 per month on parents. From his current marriage with Sri Suchitra Marella he has two children by name (i) Yashvi Sarikonda and (ii) Ridhvi Sarikonda. His first child is suffering from recurrent epitasis, requires ongoing medical care and regular examination, he is incurring approximately $1200.00 towards food, clothing etc., $1000.00 towards education. He was hospitalized between 2018 and 2019 due to sudden episodes of loss of consciousness, needs regular check-ups.

               25.2 Appellant–husband is employed at RS Americas as system Analyst, after tax his yearly income is $ 68,600.00. As per Indian Rupees his monthly salary is Rs.5,25,000/- and annual salary is Rs.63,00,000/-. He sold his residential house to third parties due to financial constraints and he do not have any liabilities.

               25.3 It is important to note here that in the assets and liabilities filed by the appellant – husband at Column J: information with respect to income, assets and liabilities of the other spouse: It is mentioned as N/A.

26.1 Respondent – wife has filed her assets and liabilities wherein she stated that her monthly expenses are INR 30,000 apart from that she is spending INR 10,000 per month on her parents. She worked at the following places:

                Nov 2016- Feb 2020, Collabera, INR 9.2 lakhs per annum with tax

                Mar 2020-Oct 2020 - Unemployed

                Nov 2020- Nov 2021- Collabera, INR 8 lakhs per annum with tax

                Dec 2021- Mar 2023 - Panamax, INR 9.7 lakhs per annum with tax

                Apr 2023-Aug2025 - Infosys, INR 12 lakhs per annum with tax

                Current Employer: HSBC, Sep 2025 – Present Designation: Consultant Specialist Income : 27 lakhs per annum with tax.

She has taken INR 64 lakhs as home loan from LIC in the month of March-2024 for the property at plot No.138, Pasumamula, Hayathnatar and paying EMIs: INR 58,562 per month. Amount paid as on 24.03.2026 is INR 14,05,488.

               26.2 Appellant – husband is employed in Allied Electronics as per Employment letter dated 22.08.2012 for the position of Sr.SAP Basis Administrator at a biweekly rate of $ 4615.38 (equal to $1,20,000 annually).

27. Appellant – husband has enclosed his income tax for the year 2011, 2013, 2014, they do not contain his signature and of his wife signature as stated in the columns, he also filed statement of wells Fargo everyday checking from October – December 2025 and January – February 2026 showing the deposits, withdrawals and ending daily balance.

28. Appellant – husband is earning 2 times more than the respondent – wife as evident from the assets and liabilities filed by him, he has stated nothing in respect of the earning of the respondent – wife in column J. Appellant – husband has not elicited anything from the cross examination of PW1 with regard to her earnings. Respondent – wife fairly stated in her assets and liabilities about her income source and liabilities.

29. Taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter with that of the assets and liabilities filed by the parties, we are of the view that the learned Family Court has rightly directed the appellant – husband to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. Hence point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

30. In view of the reasons mentioned in point No.1 we are of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Family Court, hence point is answered accordingly.

31. FCA.No.532 of 2018 is dismissed without costs.

Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous petition/s if any stands closed.