K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Ms. Y.Sonanjali, learned counsel representing Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.05.2018 passed in FCOP No.1598 of 2014 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the appellant filed the present appeal.

3. The respondent – husband filed the aforesaid petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty contending as follows:-

               i. His marriage with the respondent – wife was performed on 15.05.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs, at Hyderabad.

               ii. It is an arranged marriage.

               iii. At the time of marriage, she was studying MBA course.

               iv. They were blessed with a female child on 05.06.2012 out of their lawful wedlock.

               v. After couple of weeks, she left his company.

               vi. Despite his request, she did not come back to join him on the pretext that her college is near to her parents house and she needs to prepare for her MBA examinations.

               vii. She stayed at her parents house for about three weeks and during the said period, he used to visit her and take her out for dinner and movies.

               viii. He took her to Kerala for honeymoon during 15-6-2011 to 19-6-2011 along with his friend and his friend’s wife, who were also newly married couple.

               ix. During their stay at Munnar, she behaved abnormally and strangely, she did not talk with anyone and on one night, she threw the mobile phone, comb, bag etc. on him by shouting loudly without any reason.

               x. When he questioned her about her behavior, she informed that she is suffering from psychic problem since her childhood, she is using medicines and if she discontinues the medicines, her behaviour will be abnormal.

               xi. The parents of the appellant – wife suppressed the said fact prior to the marriage.

               xii. In the month of July, 2011 as it was ashadamasam, she went to her parents house to appear for her MBA exams.

               xiii. After completion of ashadamasam, when he along with his parents went to her parental house to bring her back, she refused.

               xiv. On persuasion, she joined him and stayed for only 3 days and left the house without informing any one.

               xv. Her parents informed that as she was suffering with psychic problem, she went to their house.

               xvi. Even he spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- for her treatment.

               xvii. On his several requests, she joined his company at Vanasthalipuram, on the next day, she picked up quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language, slapped him and threatened that she would commit suicide.

               xviii. Unable to control her, he left the bed room and went to ground floor. She also rushed behind him, slapped him and tore his shirt in the presence of everyone. When his parents tried to stop her, she abused them in filthy language and threw dining table chair on his paternal aunt who is aged about 95 years as such she sustained injuries. She also threw the land line phone on ground.

               xix. She again came back to his house and stayed at about 4 to 5 days during which period, she used to take medicines, sleep for 15 hours and she used to go into the kitchen and throw all household articles.

               xx. He was in Pune and Gujarath from October 2011 to January 2012 on his official work and visited to Hyderabad twice and requested her to join him in Pune, for which she refused.

               xxi. On enquiry, her father informed him that she was undergoing treatment with Dr.Gowri Devi of Image Hospital as well as Asha Hospital. On her birthday on 15-12-2011, his mother invited her and her parents for dinner and gifted one gold ring and new cloths to her in his absence.

               xxii. When he returned to Hyderabad, he contacted Dr.Gowri Devi at Asha Hospital, Banjara Hills, she informed him the appellant – wife is her old patient and taking treatment from the past few years. The respondent conceived when he was at Pune. On his request, she joined him, but there was no change in her attitude and left his house.

               xxiii. She used to say that she got married him against her wishes and that she is not interested in him.

               xxiv. In spite of his request, to come to his house for performing "Seemantham" function, the appellant did not come and she continued to stay at her parents house.

               xxv. She gave birth to a female child on 05-06-2012. When he along with his parents went to see the child, they were not treated properly and insulted them in the presence of all their relatives.

               xxvi. She lodged a complaint with Women Police Station Saroornagar, on 03-09-2012 against him and his parents. The police called them to the police station on 08-09-2012 and 09-09-2012, where she and her parents demanded him to put up separate residence.

               xxvii. Though he put up separate residence at Plot No.19, Ammadaya colony, GSI, PO Mansoorabad and requested her to join him, she refused.

               xxviii. He got issued legal notice dated 19.11.2012 requesting her to join his company within one week. She got issued reply notice dated 26-11-2012 refusing to join him.

               xxix. Again she approached Women Police Station, Saroornagar and lodged a complaint, who in turn, registered as a case in Cr.No. 160 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in which case, he was released on bail.

               xxx. On his release on bail, the appellant – wife along with her parents, her uncle Sreeramoju Nandakumar, Siddeshwar, Mani Rani, Mahila Madali President, Kaveri and 14 others trespassed into their house and severely beat his old aged mother and other inmates, which was recorded in CC camera. Then he lodged a complaint with the Police, Vanasthalipuram, Police Station, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No. 71 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of IPC and after investigation, the Investigating Officer, filed charge sheet.

               xxxi. In view of the several complaints lodged by the appellant, a Look Out Circular was issued against him and the immigration authorities detained him.

               xxxii. She has also filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, but she is not regularly attending to Court.

               xxxiii. Because of her health condition and the aforesaid disputes, he cannot lead marital life with her.

4. With the aforesaid contentions, he sought to grant decree of divorce against the appellant herein – wife.

5. The appellant – wife filed counter denying the allegations made by the respondent – husband contending:-

               i. She was studying MBA final year at Stanly College of Engineering and Technology for women, at Nampally, Hyderabad, which is nearer to her parents house.

               ii. As she was pregnant, she could not appear for MBA final year examination, she stayed at her parents house and completed the course in the year 2013.

               iii. After marriage, she joined the respondent - Husband and discharged her duties as a house wife.

               iv. The respondent - husband, being a software professional, frequently used to go to different places like Pune, Gujarath etc, and not used to talk with her.

               v. She stayed at her parents house for about three weeks during Ashadamasam.

               vi. The respondent – Husband took her to Kerala for Honeymoon during 15-6-2011 to 19-6-2011 along with his friend and his wife, who were also newly married couple.

               vii. Her pregnancy was confirmed when he was at Pune. He never requested her to come and join him.

               viii. In fact, her father paid the hospital charges to the tune of Rs.61,665/-. Her husband took away all the bills on the pretext that he would claim the amount from his company, but falsely claiming that he alone paid the said amount.

               ix. Her husband went out of station for about 2 months on official work, but he did not inform her the same.

               x. He never requested her to join and she never refused to join him.

               xi. He never asked him to get a house nearer to her parents house at Masabtank. After receipt of a letter dated 6-11-2012 from him with regard to new flat, she along with her child and her parents went to the said house, but the same was found locked but the said house owner informed that he was not staying in the said house.

               xii. Her husband lodged a false complaint with the Police Vanasthalipuram Police Station who, in turn, registered a case in Cr.No. 71 of 2013 for the offence under sections 448, 323 and 506 of IPC and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against her and her relatives which was ended in acquittal.

               xiii. At her instance, police never issued Look out Circular against him, due to which his movements were curtailed, he was never stopped at the airport by the immigration authorities, never detained him and handed him over to the police as such he lost his job and that he was put to humiliation and great mental agony. The said allegations are false and baseless.

               xiv. She filed DVC No.15 of 2014 against him and his family members. She also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide MC No. 34 of 2013. Despite orders passed in Crl.M.P No. 589 of 2015 to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- to her and Rs.4,000/- to her daughter, the respondent – husband remained defaulter as such, she along with her daughter were compelled to stay with her parents.

               xv. She never left his company without his knowledge at any point. She never lead happy marital life from the beginning as he developed hatred towards her, used to abuse her in filthy language on petty issues and harassed her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 to 6 Lakhs or a car.

               xvi. He used to harass her demanding additional dowry. He stopped talking to her for days together.

               xvii. She conceived in the month of September, 2011, but her husband never took care of her nor provided anything for her expenses.

               xviii. Due to the continuous harassment, she suffered depression during 5th month of her pregnancy.

               xix. Her husband is staying in his own house at Vanasthalipuram and fetching Rs.1,00,000/- per year towards rent. He is also working as software professional in M/s. Hitachi Consultants, Hyderabad and drawing salary of Rs. 1,60,000/- per month.

               xx. It is her husband who deserted her and failed to provide any maintenance and subjected them to cruelty. She is always ready and willing to join him along with her daughter.

6. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the petition.

7. To prove the cruelty, the respondent - husband examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctors who treated the appellant – wife as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.10. Ex.P.1 is wedding card, Ex.P.2, P.8 to P.10 are photographs, Exs. P.3 and 4 are reply notices, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.719 of 2013, Exs.P.6 and P.7 are medical prescriptions.

8. To disprove the claim of the respondent – husband, the appellant - wife examined herself as R.W.1, her father as R.W.2 (his evidence is eschewed), her mother as R.W.3 and her maternal uncle as R.W.4 and marked Ex.R.1 acknowledgment slip of TTD, dated 07.03.2013.

9. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 31.05.2018, the learned Family Court, allowed the said FCOP dissolving the marriage dated 15.05.2011 of the respondent – husband with the appellant –wife. However, learned Family Court, directed the respondent – husband to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) in the name of the child towards her maintenance and on such deposit, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued on the said deposit until the minor girl attains age of majority.

10. Challenging the said order, the appellant – wife preferred the present appeal. Vide order dated 20.07.2018, this Court suspended the impugned order. The same is subsisting as on today.

11. According to the respondent – husband, the appellant – wife was suffering with schizophrenia prior to marriage. The parents of the appellant – wife suppressed the said fact while performing the marriage. It is also the specific contention of the respondent – husband that after marriage, he took the appellant – wife to Kerala to Honeymoon along with his friend and his friend’s wife, the newly married couple. During their stay at Munnur, the appellant -wife behaved abnormally and strangely stopped talking with any one and that at one night she shouted loudly. However, the respondent – husband has not examined his friend or his friend's wife to prove the same. Though the respondent contended that appellant – wife was suffering with psychic problem since her childhood, he neither examined any witness nor filed any document to prove the same. It is also apt to note that during cross-examination, he has not elicited anything from the appellant – wife/RW1.

12. It is the specific contention of the appellant - wife that during pregnancy, she complained about sleeplessness, dullness and low mood and took treatment with P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.Ws. 2 and 3 also deposed that the appellant - wife has taken treatment with them complaining the aforesaid ailments during her pregnancy. Respondent – husband did not elicit anything from them to prove that the appellant has taken treatment with them before marriage. Thus, respondent herein failed to prove the said allegation that the appellant – wife was suffering with psychic problem from her childhood, more particularly, before marriage. Despite making an allegation that the appellant - wife used to leave his company without informing him as she was suffering with psychic problem, the respondent/husband failed to prove the same.

13. Respondent – husband made a serious allegation against his wife that she picked up quarrel at Vanasthalipuram, abused him in filthy language, slapped him and threatened him that she would commit suicide. However, he has not examined any witness including his parents, neighbours or relatives in proof of the same. He has not lodged any complaint against the appellant herein. It is also alleged by respondent – husband that on that particular point of time, when he went to ground floor to his parents, the appellant – wife rushed behind him, slapped and tore his shirt in the presence of everyone. His parents tried to stop her, she abused him in filthy language, threw dining table, chair on his parental aunt who is about 95 years, as such she sustained injuries. She also threw the landline phone on the ground. He further alleged that out of shock with the behavior of the appellant – wife, he along with his parents called her parents who took her to their house for treatment stating that she behaves like that sometimes due to her psychic problem. However, respondent – husband has not examined his parents or any other person in proof of the same. He has not elicited anything from R.Ws.3 and 4 with regard to the same.

14. It is also the specific allegation of the respondent - husband that his job involves in touring, when he was in Pune during October, 2011 to January, 2012 on his official work, he visited Hyderabad twice and requested her to join him in Pune for which she refused. When he enquired with the father of the appellant with regard to her health condition, he informed that she was undergoing treatment with P.W.3-Dr. Gowri Devi, Image hospital as well as Asha hospital. On the birthday of the appellant i.e. on 15.12.2011, mother of the respondent - husband invited the appellant – wife and her family members for dinner and gifted one gold ring and new clothes to her in his absence. Respondent has also made an allegation that he visited Asha hospital and contacted P.W.3, who informed him that the appellant is her old patient and taking treatment from the past few years. But he failed to elicit the said fact from P.W.3 during cross-examination.

15. In fact, P.W.3 specifically deposed that the appellant – wife came to her on 09.01.2012 during pregnancy, complaining decrease in sleep, restless, fearfulness. During cross-examination, she has admitted that there is possibility for women suffering from sleeplessness, restlessness, irritable angry. There is possibility of the same to any person suffering from the above disease. The patient was fit for marital life.

16. Respondent – husband/R.W.2 also made an allegation that the appellant approached Women Police Station on 03.09.2012, lodged a complaint against him and his parents. The Police called him and his parents to the Police Station on 08.09.2012 and 09.09.2012 where the appellant and her parents demanded him to put up a separate residence. Though he tried to convince the appellant, she refused due to her adamant attitude. However, the police have registered a case against the husband and his parents for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the respondent. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the police arrested the respondent and he was remanded for ten days. His bail was rejected twice. He was detained in Airport twice.

17. Thus, according to the husband, the appellant – wife subjected him to cruelty.

18. Though there is an allegation that they were approached Sri Jalagam Prabhakara Chary, the mediator to settle the issue, the respondent – husband did not examine him.

19. Respondent – husband made a serious allegation against the R.W.4 – maternal uncle of the appellant – wife with regard to his interference in the family life of the appellant and respondent. The cross-examination of R.W.4 would reveal that he used to work as correspondent in SRL Pharmacy College, Warangal and he was removed from service and a case is pending with regard to the same.

20. It is also apt to note that on the complaint lodged by respondent/husband, police have registered a case against R.W.4. He has admitted the said fact during his cross-examination. He was present on 25.01.2013 at the time of incident at the house of respondent. He also admitted his presence in Ex.P.8 photograph. He has further admitted that he does not know personally regarding relations between the appellant and respondent. He has challenged the said order and it is pending. Except that the respondent – husband failed to elicit anything from him.

21. R.W.3 – mother in law of the respondent during cross-examination admitted that she gave evidence in C.C.No.719 of 2013 i.e. Ex.P.5. She further stated that she was not aware as to what transpired between the appellant and the respondent at her matrimonial house. Mr. Jalagam Prabhakara Chary, is not running any marriage bureau, but used to search for alliance at request of the parents of the appellant. She was in contact with the said Jalagam Prabhakara Chary. She has not mentioned in her evidence the date on which R.W.4 Nanda Kumar, her sister’s husband and her sister attended mediation. However, she has denied the suggestion that the appellant is suffering with the depression even prior to her marriage and the same was observed by respondent even during the honeymoon trips. She has further admitted that she went to the house of the respondent and appellant after they put up separate family. The disputes were pending between the appellant and respondent when the appellant was pursuing her M.S. in USA. At that time, the respondent and appellant attended counselling in WPS, Saroor Nagar. They did not inform the respondent about sending the appellant to USA. The child was with them when the appellant stayed in USA.

22. The aforesaid stated facts would reveal that there were disputes between the appellant and respondent. It is also apt to note that during cross-examination, the appellant – R.W.1 categorically admitted with regard to lodging a complaint against the respondent and her parents for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, filing an application under Section 12 of the DVC Act, a petition under Section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance. She has also admitted that she filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said petition was dismissed for default. Even the application filed by her under Section 12 of the DVC was dismissed for default. The respondent was acquitted in the complaint filed by her for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. She did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment.

23. She has also admitted that her father – in- law died when she was in USA and her father attended the funeral. She completed MBA after marriage from Stanley College, Hyderabad. She took treatment when she was pregnant under R.W.3. However, she denied the suggestion that she was suffering from psychic problem from her childhood before the marriage. She has also admitted that respondent was arrested on the complaint lodged by her. However, she has further admitted that she was not aware as to whether the respondent was arrested and sent to judicial custody. The aforesaid evidence would reveal that there were disputes between the appellant and respondent from the beginning of the marriage. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.05.2011. They were blessed with a female child on 05.06.2012. They have lived for a short period together. The appellant was studying MBA at the time of marriage. There is also no dispute that they went to Kerala for honeymoon on 19.06.2011. Though respondent – husband made a serious allegation regarding psychic behavior of the appellant during the said trip, he failed to prove the same.

24. The aforesaid evidence also would reveal that the appellant has taken treatment with P.Ws. 2 and 3 for sleeplessness, restlessness and fearlessness etc. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 would reveal the said fact.

25. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was sent to judicial remand for ten days on the complaint lodged by the appellant. His bail application was rejected. Look Out Circular was issued at the instance of the appellant. According to him, he was detained in Airport twice. 26. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was pursuing MBA at the time of marriage. While the disputes were going on, she went to USA without informing respondent. R.W.3 admitted the said fact, during cross-examination.

27. Perusal of the record would also reveal that Mahila Mandali conducted counselling. It was not successful. It is also not in dispute that the appellant went to the office and residence of the respondent and informed with regard to lodging of a complaint against the respondent and his parents. Thus, there are strained relations between the appellant and respondent.

28. There is also no dispute that the respondent got issued a legal notice to appellant on 19.11.2012 and the appellant got issued reply dated 26.11.2012 which is Ex.P.3. Thereafter, respondent issued another rejoinder to the reply to the said notice dated 01.12.2012 i.e. Ex.P.4. Respondent has explained all the aforesaid facts.

29. It is also not in dispute that C.C.No.719 of 2013 registered by the Police, Vanasthalipuram Police Station at the instance of the appellant was ended in acquittal vide Ex.P.5 judgment dated 27.09.2016. Respondent has not preferred any appeal challenging the said judgment. Respondent has also filed Ex.P.6 - medical prescriptions. Ex.P.7 medical prescription, dated 09.01.2012 and perusal of the same, would reveal that the appellant has taken treatment with P.Ws. 2 and 3 on 09.01.2012 and 13.01.2012 i.e. post marriage, during pregnancy.

30. As discussed supra, though the respondent – husband made a serious allegation against the appellant – wife that she is suffering from psychic problem from her childhood, more particularly, before marriage, he has not examined any witness and produced any document in proof of the same. He has not elicited anything from P.Ws.2 and 3. On consideration of the same, vide impugned order dated 31.05.2018, learned Family Court, held that the appellant was suffering from irretrievable anger which caused disputes in marital life. In fact, the aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 would reveal that the appellant suffered with the said ailments during her pregnancy.

31. It is also not in dispute that the parents of respondent obtained anticipatory bail in the crime registered by the Women Police Station, on the complaint lodged by the appellant. They have also approached this Court seeking a direction to the police not to call them frequently. As discussed supra, on the complaint lodged by respondent, police Vanasthalipuram have registered a case in Cr.No.71 of 2013 against the appellant and her parents, her maternal uncle (R.W.4) for the offence under Section 448, 313 and 506 of IPC. The aforesaid incidents proves that there are strained relations between the appellant and respondent.

32. It is also apt to note that considering the disputes between the appellant and respondent, on coming to conclusion that there was possibility of settlement, vide order dated 18.04.2022, this Court referred the matter to the Mediator. On 10.10.2022, the Mediator, Mediation and Arbitration Centre, High Court for the State of Telangana, submitted report dated 22.07.2022, stating that the mediation was unsuccessful. Therefore, the efforts made by the Mediation Centre were in vain.

33. Vide order, dated 14.11.2025, we have directed the appellant, respondent and their daughter for the purpose of interaction. In compliance with the said order, they were present on 19.11.2025, we have interacted with them separately. During the course of interaction, we came to know that the respondent met the child twice at Inorbit mall and GVK mall. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent has paid an amount of Rs.17 Lakhs to the appellant and her daughter towards maintenance. Now, the appellant has been working. Therefore, he stopped payment of the said maintenance.

34. As discussed supra, there is strained relation between the appellant and respondent. They have been staying separately since 2012 onwards. There was exchange of legal notices between them.

35. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that neither Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage but certainly, the said aspect can be considered along with other aspects while deciding the present appeal. As discussed supra, there is no possibility of re-union of the parties.

36. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order, learned Family Court granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent. However, learned Family Court directed the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards maintenance of minor child. The daughter of the appellant and respondent was born on 05.06.2012 and she is 13 years as of now. She is studying 8th class. As discussed supra, respondent has also paid an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- to his daughter towards maintenance. Admittedly, he has not filed any application seeking custody of the child and for her visitation rights. However, he met her twice i.e. once in Inorbit mall and second time in GVK Mall. Admittedly, the appellant has brought up her daughter and provided education and has to perform her marriage. Therefore, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the Family Court towards maintenance of the child is not sufficient. During the course of interaction, the respondent informed us that he has a house at Vanasthalipuram and he has 1/4th share in the said house. He would get 50 to 60 Lakhs towards his share. As discussed supra, the appellant is working now and she can maintain her own. Therefore, she is not entitled for any permanent alimony.

37. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order, dated 31.05.2018 passed in FCOP No.1598 of 2014 by the learned Family Court granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 15.05.2011 of the respondent with the appellant is confirmed. However, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only) towards maintenance of his daughter by way of deposit of the said amount in FDR in a nationalized bank by mentioning his daughter as nominee and hand over the original FDR to his daughter. However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The aforesaid amount is towards full and final settlement of the appellant and her daughter including permanent alimony and maintenance. In view of the same, the appellant and her daughter shall not make any further claim against the respondent over the properties of the respondent – husband in any manner etc. It is also made clear that if the respondent – husband fails to pay the said amount within the aforesaid period of three (3) months from today, liberty is granted to the appellant – wife and her daughter to take steps against her husband in accordance with law.

38. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.