Common Judgment

K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Sri Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Kalyana Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant - wife and Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent – Husband, in both the appeals.

               (For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife and the husband’)

2. The appellant - wife filed both the appeals against the respondent - husband. FCA No.87 of 2015 is filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 in O.P.No.904 of 2008, whereas, FCA No.100 of 2015 is against the order dated 23.02.2015 in O.P.No.570 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

3. The appellant – wife has filed an application vide O.P.No.570 of 2008 under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1955’) against the respondent - husband before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Vide impugned order, dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court dismissed the said application.

4. Respondent – Husband has filed an application vide O.P.No.904 of 2008 under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, 1955 against the appellant - wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Vide impugned order, dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court allowed the said application granting decree of divorce.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said orders, the appellant – wife filed the present appeals against the respondent - husband.

6. The respondent – husband field O.P.No.904 of 2008 against the appellant – wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending as follows:-

               i. His marriage with the appellant was performed on 22.05.2002 at Ramachandrapuram, near Eluru, as per the Hindu rites and customs.

               ii. It is an arranged marriage.

               iii. They were blessed with a female child born on 07.07.2003 out of their lawful wedlock.

               iv. They lead happy marital life for about four months.

               v. After the birth of female child, the appellant – wife changed her attitude, started subjecting him to cruelty.

               vi. She demanded him to set up separate family.

               vii. She refused to live with his parents at their house.

               viii. She, along with her family members, started picking up quarrels with him and his family members, on petty issues.

               ix. She left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents.

               x. She refused to live with his parents.

               xi. she insisted his father to execute a document in favour of their daughter for which he refused.

               xii. Brother of the appellant lodged a complaint with Police, Pedavegi against the respondent who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.134 of 2004 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

               xiii. In view of the pendency of the said crime, his father has executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of minor child in respect of two mulgies situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

               xiv. In the said registered gift settlement deed, he has mentioned that the appellant is the guardian of the minor child.

               xv. In spite of the said gift settlement deed, the appellant and her family members ill-treated the respondent and his family members. The efforts made by him to settle the matter amicably, were in vain due to the adamant attitude of the appellant – wife.

xvi. When the Appellant – wife became pregnant again, she expressed her intention to terminate the pregnancy against his wish. When there was discussion on the said issue, the brothers of the appellant – wife abused him in filthy language and tried to kill him. Then he fled away from the said place leaving his motor cycle, baggage and computer system etc.

               xvii. He has lodged a complaint on 29.07.2007 against brothers of the appellant with Chandanagar Police.

               xviii. Later, she terminated her pregnancy against his wishes.

               xix. As the appellant was not inclined to join him, he got issued a legal notice requesting her to join him, but she did not join.

7. With the above contentions, the respondent - husband sought to grant decree of divorce.

8. The appellant - wife filed counter denying the said allegations contending as follows:-

               i. Her husband and his family members demanded her and her family members for additional dowry. When she expressed her inability, they harassed her both physically and mentally.

               ii. The respondent was not happy with the appellant on the ground that she gave birth to a female child on 07.07.2003 at her parents’ house.

               iii. On the advice of the elders in the mediation, she joined him along with her daughter, but the respondent – husband continued to harass her and tried to kill her with the help of his parents. Then she along with her daughter went back to her parents house.

               iv. Respondent and his Advocate also threatened her with dire consequences that not to proceed with the criminal cases. However, as per the compromise on 20.12.2004 before Lok Adalath, the appellant joined the company of her husband.

               v. When the appellant became pregnant again, respondent forced her to terminate the pregnancy as their Siddanthi informed him that the second child would again be a female child and even the third issue would also be a female child and when she refused to terminate pregnancy, on 27.07.2005, he punched on her stomach and kicked her on abdomen causing bleeding, due to which her pregnancy was terminated.

               vi. The respondent and his family members used to harass her both mentally and physically and threatened her with dire consequences if she does not give birth to a male child.

               vii. She lodged a complaint with the Police who registered a case in Cr.No.305 of 2005 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

9. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the said OP filed by the respondent – husband and she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, vide O.P.No.570 of 2008 seeking restitution of conjugal life.

10. To prove cruelty and desertion, the respondent - husband examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6.

11. To disprove the same, the appellant - wife examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6.

12. On consideration of evidence both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court, granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 22.05.2002 of the parties and dismissed the application filed by the appellant – wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

13. Assailing the said orders, the appellant - wife preferred the present appeals contending that the trail Court erred in passing two separate orders though conducted common trial in both the OPs. The trial Court failed to observe that the respondent did not plead and prove any specific act of cruelty. The trial Court erred in holding that the parties are living separately since 2003, but missed the fact that admittedly, they re-united in the year 2004 and lead conjugal life on which ground the trial Court ought not to have dissolved the marriage.

14. As discussed supra, the respondent – husband has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.904 of 2008 against the appellant – wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, he has to plead and prove the said cruelty and desertion by producing relevant oral and documentary evidence. Though he has made so many allegations with regard to attitude of the appellant – wife, and that her brothers abused him in filthy language, he has not examined any witness except examining himself, to prove the same. However, he has marked Ex.A.1 - copy of the order in M.C.No.45 of 2005 dated 17.04.2008. Ex.A.2 – certified copy of FIR No.305 of 2005 of Cyberabad Police, Ex.A.3 – copy of charge sheet on the file of 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ex.A.4 – copy of complaint dated 29.07.2005 on the file of SHO, Chandanagar Police Station, Ex.A.5 – Receipt issued by Police and Ex.A.6 petition filed under Sections 242 and 294 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.4730 of 2005.

15. To Disprove case of the respondent – husband, the appellant – wife examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 – postal acknowledgment, Ex. B.2 – postal cover, Ex.B.3 – photograph, Ex.B.4 – certified copy of application dated 18.12.2004, Ex.B.5 – Certified copy of household card and Ex.B.6 – Photostat copy of Award passed by permanent Lok Adalath, Eluru in Cr.No.134 of 2004.

16. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was performed on 22.05.2002 and it is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a female child on 07.07.2003 out of their lawful wedlock. She is now aged 22 years. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, she is pursuing her MBBS degree.

17. The aforesaid rival contentions would also reveal that disputes arose between the appellant and respondent which are serious in nature. The appellant has lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC with the Police, Peddavegi, West Godavari District. The same was ended in compromise before Lok Adalath, Eluru vide Ex.B.6. Both the appellant and respondent agreed to live together. According to the appellant, she joined the company of the respondent. She became pregnant second time. Thereafter, respondent and his family members harassed her. According to the respondent, the appellant subjected him and his family members to cruelty.

18. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members in Cr.No.305 of 2005 with the Police, Cyberabad and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the respondent and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.305 of 2005. However, the same was ended in acquittal. The appellant – wife has preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.549 of 2024 challenging the said judgment. The said appeal is pending. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has lodged Ex. A. 4 - complaint on 29.07.2005 against brothers of the appellant alleging that they have attacked him. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the brothers of the appellant.

19. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent vide M.C.No.45 of 2005 seeking maintenance to her and her daughter. The same was allowed in part. Both of them filed revisions challenging the said order. Thereafter, the daughter of the appellant and respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.57 of 2024 seeking maintenance. The same is also pending.

20. It is also not in dispute that father of the respondent has executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the daughter of the appellant and respondent in respect of two mulgies situated at Bhimvaram, West Godavari District. According to the respondent, his father has executed the said gift settlement deed under pressure and coercion due to pendency of the aforesaid Cr.No.134 of 2004 registered under Section 498-A of IPC at the instance of the appellant.

21. As discussed supra, on the complaint lodged by the appellant, the police have registered a case against respondent and family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, on completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the respondent and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.675 of 2014. Learned trial Court convicted him for the said offence on 20.06.2015. On the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court acquitted him vide judgment dated 20.01.2025. Challenging the same, she has filed a revision and it is pending.

22. Father of the respondent has filed a suit vide O.S.No.26 of 2012 seeking cancellation of the said gift settlement deed. The same was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment and decree, his father preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.219 of 2015. It is pending. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed an application vide GWOP No.1645 of 2012 seeking custody of the minor child. The same was dismissed.

23. Thus, both the appellant and respondent filed the aforesaid cases against each other. There is strained relation between the appellant and respondent.

24. As discussed supra, the respondent/husband has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.904 of 2008 against the appellant - wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, burden lies on the respondent/husband to plead and prove the same. According to him, the appellant implicated him in the aforesaid cases and she has filed the aforesaid appeals and thus, she has subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. On consideration of the said evidence, vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court dissolved the said marriage holding that the parties are apprehending threat from each other in view of criminal complaints lodged against each other. In the absence of trust, love and affection and intention to cohabitate with each other, there is no possibility to direct the parties to lead conjugal life, as it would emerge further apprehensions, disputes etc., as the parties are not trusting each other. Though the appellant contended that in view of their child, she requires the respondent herein to join her to lead conjugal life, in order to give better life to the child. But the evidence clearly shows that there is no intention to the parties to cooperate with each other.

25. Learned Family Court further held that both the parties are staying away from 2002 onwards. However, the efforts made by the elders and mediators to re-unit them together became futile. Thus, with the aforesaid findings, learned Family Court granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties. With the said findings, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal life.

26. We have also heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent extensively.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant – wife placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya (2025 INSC 852), Kumari Rekha vs. Shambhu Saran Paswan (2025 INSC 631) to contend that burden lies on the respondent – husband to plead and prove the cruelty and desertion by producing evidence and the respondent – husband failed to discharge the said burden.

28. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent – husband placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in V.Padmaja vs. Veerla Mohan Rao (2022 (5) ALD 453 (TS) (DB)) to contend that both the appellant and respondents are staying away from 2003 and there is no possibility of their staying together.

29. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that their daughter is pursuing MBBS degree and she was brought up by the appellant – wife.

30. It is also relevant to note that, on instructions, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that even the appellant – wife is also not interested to join the company of the respondent, since they are staying away from 2003 onwards. In the light of the same, we have directed learned counsel for the appellant to get instructions with regard to permanent alimony and maintenance to the wife and child. On instructions, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent has not paid maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate as modified by this Court. The aforesaid gift settlement deed executed by father of the respondent is in dispute in A.S.No.219 of 2015. The respondent spent huge amount towards education of the child. According to her, apart from the aforesaid two mulgies, respondent is also having one more mulgi and 40 acres of land. But she has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent is having 40 acres of land.

31. Referring to cross-examination of both the P.W.1 and R.W.1, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent herein failed to prove the cruelty and desertion.

32. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the respondent is also not interested to take the appellant to his company.

33. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the parents of the respondent are no more. His brother impleaded in A.S.No.219 of 2015. It is pending. It is in respect of two mulgies situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent, on instructions, submitted that apart from the aforesaid two mulgies, they have one more mulgi.

34. Though the appellant contended that the respondent is also holding 40 acres of land, she has not produced any document to prove the same. As discussed supra, it is not in dispute that the appellant brought up her daughter who is prosecuting MBBS Degree now. It is also her submission that the respondent did not pay the maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate as modified by this Court. According to the respondent, he has paid the said amount. However, it is not proper to this Court to get into said controversy, in the present appeals.

35. Despite Ex.B.6 Award passed by permanent Lok Adalath, Eluru in Cr.No.134 of 2004 on the compromise by the appellant and respondent, they did not stay together and lead marital life happily. Disputes continued between them. Learned Family Court considered the said aspects in the impugned order and gave a finding that there was no trust, love and affection between the parties and there was no intention to cohabit with each other. With the said findings, vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court granted decree of divorce. It is a reasoned order.

36. As discussed supra, appellant – Wife had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, vide O.P.No.570 of 2008 against respondent –husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Learned Family Court considering the aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary, vide order dated 23.02.2015 dismissed the said OP. Challenging the said order, wife preferred FCA No.100 of 2015.

37. In the light of the said discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of re-union of the parties. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court in O.P.No.904 of 2015 granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the respondent – husband with the appellant - wife. Learned Family Court did not award any amount towards permanent alimony to the appellant - wife and also maintenance to their daughter. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellant – wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and also maintenance of her daughter.

38. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 23.02.2015 passed in O.P.No.904 of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the respondent – husband with the appellant – wife is confirmed, and F.C.A.No.87 of 2015 is disposed of directing the respondent – husband to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the appellant – wife towards permanent alimony and maintenance of their daughter. He shall pay the said amount within three (3) months from today. The said amount includes the maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate as modified by this Court in the aforesaid two applications filed by the appellant and their daughter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The said amount also includes the claim of the appellant and her daughter with regard to her interest in the property covered by the aforesaid gift settlement deed executed by father of the respondent in favour of the daughter of the appellant and the respondent in respect of two mulgies at Bhimavaram, subject matter of O.S.No.26 of 2012 and A.S.No.219 of 2015. The aforesaid amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) is towards full and final settlement of the appellant and her daughter including permanent alimony and maintenance respectively. In view of the same, appellant and their 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.

39. Thus, F.C.A.No.87 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly. FCA No.100 of 2015 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

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