Telangana High Court
P Bharathi, Hyd vs P.Venkata Ramana Reddy , Venkata Reddy, … on 5 May, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.59 AND 61 OF 2016
Date: 05-05-2026
Between in FCA No.59 of 2016
xxxxx ... Appellant
Vs.
xxxxx ... Respondent
This Court delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel for the
appellant – wife and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent-husband.
2. F.C.A. No.59 of 2016 is filed by the wife aggrieved by the
order dated 11.01.2016 in O.P.No. 71 of 2014 passed by learned XV
Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, while
F.C.A. No.61 of 2016 is filed by her challenging the order dated
11.01.2016 in O.P. No.1393 of 2014 passed by the very same Court.
2
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
3. The appellant – wife filed the aforesaid O.P.No.71 of 2014
against the respondent – husband under Section – 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, directing the
husband to permit her to join his company. Whereas, respondent –
husband herein filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1393 of 2014 under Section
– 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the
Act, 1955’) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant –
wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He also filed another
O.P. No.1393 of 2014 under Sections – 7 to 10 and 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to appoint him as natural guardian of
minor ward, Trisha Reddy.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as ‘wife’ and ‘husband’.
5. The husband filed the aforesaid O.P. No.1393 of 2024
against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion contending that:
i. The marriage of the parties was performed on 03.07.1999 at
Kadapa District as per Hindu rites and customs.
ii. It is an arranged marriage.
3
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016iii. In the year 1998, the husband completed his M.S. in Computer
Science at Loyola University, Chicago, USA.
iv. Both the parties went to Chicago in July 1999 and the husband
joined in Diamond Management Software Company as
Database Administrator.
v. Both of them lead a happy marital life for about two years.
vi. Subsequently, in the year 2000, the wife was diagnosed with
breast cancer, and the husband arranged for her surgery and
took considerable care of her health.
vii. She gave birth to a female child in 09.011.2003 in Chicago,
USA.
viii. She neglected day to day duties and she began ignoring the
husband.
ix. When mother of the husband came to USA in October, 2003,
wife ill-treated his mother by using provocative and abusive
words against him and his mother.
x. The wife abused her husband by calling a stout personality.
xi. The husband bought a house at Chicago and spent a lot of
money and provided all facilities in the said house according to
4
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016the wish of his wife, still she compares him with other people
who are richer and humiliate him.
xii. The wife used to quarrel with him and threatened to call to the
local police.
xiii. The husband was deprived of his basic necessities in his life on
account of the peculiar behavior of the respondent.
xiv. The wife used to create scene for trivial incidents and
humiliated her husband in the presence of relatives and friends.
xv. The wife neglected her husband by not attending to household
duties, including cooking, and to have insulted and abused him,
as well as indulged in disruptive conduct such as breaking her
bangles, striking her head against the wall, throwing articles
around, and creating scenes, thereby making the respondent’s
life miserable.
xvi. Sister of the wife by name Madhavi is also staying in USA. She
always interferes in his family affairs.
xvii. The wife neglected her daughter and did not give motherly
affection to her at any point of time.
xviii. In August 2009, the husband came to India and went to
Proddatur to see the child and the husband, but he was
5
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016restrained by his wife and her parents to enter into their house
and abused him in a filthy language.
xix. Subsequently a panchayat was held in MLA Quarters at
Hyderabad, belongs to Sri Palle Raghunatha Reddy, MLA,
where the elders and other people advised her to change her
attitude and lead happy matrimonial life.
xx. Both the parties went to USA along with their child in the last
week of August, 2009. Even then, the wife did not change her
attitude and continued the same temperament and humiliated
and harassed the husband.
xxi. He recorded some of the abusive and provocative words of the
appellant through his phone.
xxii. In 2009, the husband lost his job, he went to Africa in January
2011 with permission of his wife and he returned after two
months. During the said period, the wife did not attend his calls
nor allowed the child to talk to him
xxiii. He joined his daughter in Oakridge International School,
Hyderabad.
xxiv. He comes from a reputed family and keeping their status in the
society, he and his parents tolerated the behavior of the wife.
6
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016xxv. He suffered mental and physical cruelty due to the peculiar
attitude of the wife.
xxvi. Without informing the husband and his parents, the wife left the
matrimonial home and went to Proddatur in the last week of
June, 2011.
xxvii. The wife filed a false and frivolous complaint for the offence
under Section 498A of IPC against the husband and his family
members.
xxviii. A panchayat was held on the following day, wherein the wife
demanded substantial amount towards permanent alimony, and
as the husband was in police custody, he agreed to pay
Rs.1,33,00,000/- to the wife.
xxix. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where the
husband and his family members were acquitted, and both
parties agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent,
which was registered as O.P.No. 135 of 2011.
xxx. The wife initially expressed her unwillingness to proceed with
divorce, leading to adjournments; however, during conciliation
held on 03.09.2012, she agreed for mutual divorce and the
terms were reduced into writing. The husband paid
7
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016Rs.19,00,000/- in terms of the compromise and was ready to
pay the balance amount in installments.
xxxi. The wife did not adhere to the terms of compromise and did not
cooperate for mutual divorce, resulting in dismissal of O.P.No.
135 of 2011 on 23.11.2013.
xxxii. The marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down
on account of the bitterness between them.
With the aforesaid contentions, the husband sought to grant decree of
divorce by dissolving his marriage with wife.
6. The wife filed a petition vide O.P. No.71 of 2014 under
Section – 9 of the Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights
against husband and filed counter in O.P. No.1393 of 2014 contending
as follows:
i. At the time of marriage, the parents of the wife gave
Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry, 100 tolas of gold and after two days of
marriage, the parents of the husband demanded additional
dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-.
ii. While residing with the husband in USA, the wife was abused,
insulted, and physically assaulted, including being beaten with
8
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016household objects including kitchen utensils, sticks, T.V.
remote and kitchen folks and subjected to degrading treatment.
iii. When the wife informed about the harassment to her younger
father-in-law i.e. Sri Palle Raghunatha Reddy, she was advised
not to reveal to anybody as the prestige of the family is
involved.
iv. The husband forced her to undergo abortion when she was
pregnant with a female child in the year 2003, and beat her
number of times.
v. In the year 2006, when the wife conceived for the second time,
on 30.10.2006, the husband allegedly caught hold of her hair
and dragged her from upstairs to downstairs, causing bleeding
injuries, for which she was taken to Edward Hospital where she
received treatment and stitches.
vi. At the instance of the husband’s parents, the second pregnancy
got aborted.
vii. On 18.03.2007, the husband beat the wife with his hand and she
got injured her left eye and she was taken to emergency hospital
and treated.
9
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016viii. The husband used to watch blue films at home, consume
Viagra, and express a desire to engage in sexual relations with
other women.
ix. The husband purchased a gun, obtained a license for the same,
and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the harassment to
elders.
x. While returning to India, the husband proceeded to Bengaluru
along with the child, leaving the wife behind at Delhi.
xi. Thereafter, the wife’s brothers took her to Anantapur, where the
parents of the husband refused her entry into the house and
necked her out.
xii. The husband and his parents attempted to kill the wife, and she
was rescued by a maid servant and one Vijaya, following which
a panchayat was convened at the instance of her family and
elders, during which a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made.
xiii. On 03.09.2011, the husband attempted to kill the wife by
strangulation and forcibly obtained her signatures on typed and
blank papers, and she was rescued by her brothers.
xiv. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged at Proddatur III-Town
Police Station against the husband, his parents, and his sister for
10
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016harassment, which was registered as a crime under Section
498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
xv. At the intervention of elders, the dispute was amicably settled
and referred to the Lok Adalat, where it was registered as Case
No.326 of 2011 in P.L.C. No.29 of 2011. An award dated
15.10.2011 was passed, wherein it was agreed that the husband
would pay a sum of Rs.1,33,00,000/- to the wife. On receipt of
the said amount, the wife would relinquish her rights in all
movable and immovable properties of her husband. The
custody of the minor child would remain with the husband, with
visitation rights to the wife upon informing the family elders.
The wife would not initiate any further proceedings in India or
USA and would withdraw the pending criminal cases against
the husband and his family. The husband would discharge all
loans standing in the wife’s name, and both parties would file a
petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court
at Anantapur.
11
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
xvi. But, as the husband did not comply with the said award and is
not permitting to see her daughter, and thereby she suffered
mentally.
xvii. Despite severe harassment caused by the husband and his
family, she is ready to lead a happy married life with him.
With the aforesaid contentions, the wife sought to grant decree in her
favour by permitting her to discharge her conjugal obligations as wife
and dismiss O.P. filed by the husband seeking divorce.
7. In both the petitions, both the parties have filed counters
with the aforesaid contentions, denying the allegations made against
each other.
8. As stated above, the husband also filed O.P. No. 155 of 2014
seeking custody of the child, and in the said proceedings, the wife
filed a counter-claim seeking custody. Learned Family Court allowed
the petition filed by the husband and granted custody of the child to
him.
9. The learned Family Court consolidated all the three petitions
and recorded common evidence in O.P.No.1393 of 2014 as joint trial.
12
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
10. In O.P. No.1393 of 2014, to prove the said cruelty and
desertion, the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and marked
Exs.P.1 to A.29.
11. To disprove the same, the wife examined herself as R.W.1
and her father as R.W.2 and marked Ex.R1 to R17. Ex.X1 to X5 has
also been marked.
12. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, the learned Family Court dismissed O.P. No.71 of 2014
filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and allowed the
petitions filed by the husband, namely O.P. No.155 of 2014 seeking
custody of the child and O.P. No.1393 of 2014 seeking dissolution of
marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
13. Assailing the aforesaid orders in O.P. No.71 of 2014 and
O.P. No.1393 of 2014, the wife preferred the present appeals as stated
above.
14. It is apt to note that F.C.A No. 58 of 2016 was preferred by
the wife challenging the order in O.P. No.155 of 2014, granting
custody of the child to the husband. In fact, the wife filed counter
claim in the said O.P. No.155 of 2014 for custody of minor child and
13
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
the same was dismissed. Therefore, challenging the dismissal of the
said counter claim, the wife also filed F.C.A No. 57 of 2016. Both the
appeals i.e., F.C.A Nos. 57 and 58 of 2016 were withdrawn by the
wife since she filed an application for child custody and also an
application for divorce in USA. Accordingly, vide order dated
09.10.2017, both the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the husband and the
wife extensively. Perused the record.
16. It is not in dispute that the parties herein are legally wedded
couple and they are blessed with a female child. They are making
allegations against each other. The husband alleges that his wife
subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. She alleges that he
harassed her and he never treated her with care, love and affection.
17. The aforesaid stated facts would reveal that the marriage of
the parties was performed on 03.07.1999. It is an arranged marriage.
They were blessed with a female child on 09.11.2003, namely, Trisha
Reddy.
18. There is also no dispute that the wife has lodged a
complaint at Proddatur Police Station for the offences under Section
14
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
498A of IPC and Sections – 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. III-Town Police Station, Proddatur registered the said
complaint as case in Crime No.141 of 2011 for the offence under
Section 498A of IPC against the husband and his family members.
19. It is evident from the record that pursuant to the complaint
lodged by the wife in Crime No.141 of 2011 of III Town Police
Station, Proddatur, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat,
wherein a settlement was arrived at and an award dated 15.10.2011 in
P.L.C. No.29 of 2011 (L.A.C. No.326 of 2011) was passed. As per
the terms of the said award, the husband agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,33,00,000/- towards permanent alimony and maintenance, and
also undertook to discharge all debts standing in the name of the wife.
It was further agreed that the minor child would remain in the custody
of the husband with visitation rights to the wife, and that the wife
would withdraw the criminal case and undertake not to initiate any
further civil or criminal proceedings either in India or in USA.
Importantly, both parties agreed to file a petition for divorce by
mutual consent before the Family Court, Anantapur.
15
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
20. In pursuance of the said settlement, the parties filed a
petition under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 in O.P. No.135 of 2011
before the Family Court, Anantapur. It is the contention of the
husband that the wife received part payment of Rs.26,00,000/-, but
subsequently failed to cooperate for obtaining a decree of divorce by
mutual consent, resulting in dismissal of the said petition on
23.11.2013. On the contrary, the wife contends that the husband
failed to comply with the terms under the Lok Adalat award and did
not allow her to visit her child.
21. In order to enforce the Lok Adalat award dated 15.10.2011,
the wife filed E.P. No.30 of 2016 in P.L.C. No.29 of 2011 before the
Court of District Judge, Anantapuramu. The said execution petition
was adjudicated and by order dated 01.08.2018, learned District Judge
dismissed the execution petition holding that the Lok Adalat award
was conditional in nature. The learned District Judge specifically
recorded that while the husband was required to pay Rs.1,33,00,000/-,
the wife was equally bound to cooperate in obtaining divorce by
mutual consent, which she failed to do. Consequently, it was held that
16
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
there was no wilful default on the part of the husband and the award
could not be executed against him.
22. According to the husband, on 25.11.2013, the wife along
with her father, brother and about 30-35 persons, allegedly came to his
house and threatened his parents with dire consequences, including
elimination of the entire family. In this regard, the husband lodged a
complaint under Sections 506 and 509 IPC, which was registered as
Crime No. 307 of 2013 at Anantapur Police Station.
23. On 20.12.2013, the wife lodged a complaint under Sections
498A and 323 of IPC with P.S. Raiduragam, Hyderabad, who in turn
registered a case in Crime No.695 of 2013 against the husband and his
parents. The counsel for the husband would submit that after
conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report on
the ground of lack of evidence on 03.06.2014.
24. The wife also filed DVC No. 5 of 2014 on the file of IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally against the husband and his
parents.
25. Learned counsel for the husband would further submit that
pursuant to the common order dated 11.01.2016, the wife filed a suit
17
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
for dissolution of marriage and custody of child in USA with case
No.2017 D 1744 before Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, State of
Illinois, USA. On 25.01.2018, the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court,
State of Illinois, USA, after hearing both the parties dismissed the
petition.
26. He placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Delhi
in Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja 1, wherein it was held that India
would undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the disputes between the
spouses where the marriage was performed in India. It further held
that if the husband were to succeed in obtaining a decree of divorce in
America, it would be unlikely to receive recognition in India.
27. It is further borne out from the record that during the
pendency of the present appeals, the wife filed FCAMP No.131 of
2016 for suspension of the impugner order, the matter was taken up by
a Divisional Bench of this Court on 15.03.2017, wherein the learned
counsel for the wife submitted that she was willing to receive the
balance amount out of Rs.1.19 Crores along with interest from the
year 2011 in full settlement of disputes. However, on 25.01.2017, the
1
. 102 (2003) DLT822
18
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
learned counsel for the husband submitted that his client was not
willing to pay the said amount. The Bench also noted the submission
that the husband had remarried on 12.01.2016 i.e., immediately after
the decree of divorce dated 11.01.2016 and prima facie observed that
such remarriage was contrary to Section 15 of the Act, 1955 as the
period for filing appeal had not expired.
28. It is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh2 observed that human mind is
extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated.
Similarly human ingenuity has no bound; therefore, to assimilate the
entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What
is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The
concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his
upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural
background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions,
religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
2
. (2007) 4 SCC 511
19
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
29. In Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita 3, the Apex Court
observed that matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different
challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human
relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and
frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of
cruelty or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of
relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other,
or long separation between the two is relevant factors which a Court
must take into consideration.
30. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 4, the Apex Court held that
cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the
other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type
of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social
conditions and their culture and human values which they attach
importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.
31. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or
conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to
3
. 2023 AIR (SC 2144
4
(2006) 4 SCC 558
20
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the parties,
assess the same and come to a conclusion as to whether it amounts to
cruelty or not.
32. The daughter of the parents in the present case is 22 years
at present. It is also apt to note that the husband brought up the child.
She is with the husband in USA for the present.
33. The said facts would reveal that there is strained relation
between the parties. As on the date of filing of the both OPs., husband
was 40 years and at present he is 52 years. Likewise, at the time of
filing of the aforesaid OPs., wife was 37 years and now she is 49
years. Thus, there are serious disputes against each other. There is no
possibility of re-union of the parties since they are residing separately
for the last 15 years.
34. Learned counsel for the husband placed reliance on the
principle laid down in Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narian5, wherein,
the Apex Court held that a marriage contracted in contravention of or
violation of the proviso to Section 15 is not void but merely invalid
5
. AIR 1978 SC 1351
21
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
not affecting the core of marriage and the parties are subject to a
binding tie of wedlock flowing from the marriage.
35. As discussed above, it is the husband, who filed the
aforesaid O.P. No.1393 of 2014 against the wife seeking dissolution
of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Therefore,
burden lies upon him to plead and prove the said cruelty and
desertion.
36. As discussed above, though the husband made several
allegations, he has not examined any witness and he has not filed any
document in proof of the same except examining himself as PW.1.
However, he has filed Exs.P1 to P29 which includes copies of FIRs,
letter issued by the panchayat elder, terms recorded in PLC No.29 of
2011, affidavits of the parties in O.P. No.135 of 2011, terms of
compromise in O.P. No.135 of 2011 etc., whereas, the wife herself
examined as RW.1 and her father as RW.2. She has filed Exs.R1 to
R17.
37. Perusal of evidence, both oral and documentary, would
reveal that the wife is suffering from cancer. Presently, she is in
22
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
Proddatur of Kadapa District in Andhra Pradesh. The husband along
with his daughter is in USA. Their daughter is aged 22 years at
present. She became major.
38. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of
this Court that the husband got second marriage on 12.01.2016 i.e.,
immediately after decree of divorce dated 11.01.2016. In fact, vide
order dated 15.03.2017 in FCAMP No.131 of 2016, while suspending
the impugned order in O.P. No.1393 of 2014, this Court observed that
the remarriage of the husband contracted before the expiry of
limitation for filing appeal has no validity in law.
39. There are allegations and counter allegations against each
other. The wife has also filed an application before the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit Court, State of Illinois, USA vide Case No.2017 D
1744, seeking dissolution of marriage and custody of child. The same
was dismissed. Thus, she is also interested in obtaining decree of
divorce.
40. It is also apt to note that both the wife and the husband
agreed to obtain decree of divorce by mutual consent and accordingly
23
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
they have entered into memorandum of compromise. They have filed
a petition in O.P. No.135 of 2011, seeking dissolution of marriage
with mutual consent. They have also filed their respective affidavits
and terms of compromise vide Exs.P12 to P14. There are allegations
and counter allegations against each other stating that they have not
cooperated in obtaining decree of divorce. However, there is no
dispute with regard to the husband agreeing to pay an amount of
Rs.1.33 Crores.
41. In the order dated 15.03.2017 in the present appeal, this
Court recorded the submission made by Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy,
learned counsel for the wife that the wife is willing to receive balance
amount of Rs.1.19 Crore agreed to be paid by the husband along with
interest from 2011 to settle all the disputes. But, in the entire record,
there is nothing to prove that the husband has paid some amount out
of the agreed amount of Rs.1.33 Crores.
42. Perusal of record would reveal that the wife underwent
abortion twice. According to her, the same was due to the harassment
by the husband.
24
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
43. It is also specifically alleged by the wife that on 18.03.2017
the husband beat her with hands and she got injured to her left eye.
She was taken to Edward hospital and treated. There is also allegation
that on 03.09.2011, the husband attempted to kill her by strangulation.
He has obtained her signatures forcibly on typed and blank papers.
Thus, there are serious allegations against each other.
44. Perusal of record would also reveal that three (03) crimes
were registered against each other vide Exs.P5, 20 and 27. Despite
efforts made by the elders in the panchayat, both the husband and
wife could not lead their marital life happily. There is strained
relation between the husband and wife. Despite terms entered into
before the Lok Adalat in PLC No.29 of 2011 vide Ex.P10 and terms of
compromise in O.P. No.135 of 2011 vide Ex.P14, there is no change
in the attitude of the parties and they are not in a position to lead
marital life. Thus, there is no possibility of re-union.
45. As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, it is apt to note
that the husband is in USA along with his daughter. At the time of
filing the aforesaid OP, he was 40 years and at present he is 52 years.
Likewise, at the time of filing of the aforesaid OP, the wife was 37
25
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
years and now she is 49 years. Despite conducting conciliation
proceedings by learned Family Court in OP No.135 of 2011, the
parties agreeing to stay together, reduction of terms into writing, they
are not residing together since June, 2011.
46. As discussed above, it is not in dispute that neither learned
Family Court, nor this Court can grant decree of divorce dissolving
the marriage of the parties on the ground of irretrievable break down
of the marriage. However, the said aspect can certainly be considered
by this Court while deciding the petitions seeking dissolution of
marriage along with other aspects.
47. However, on consideration of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, learned Family Court allowed the OP filed by the
husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and
desertion and dismissed the application filed by the wife seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. As discussed above, there is no
possibility of reunion. The wife is a cancer patient. She is staying
with her parents in Proddatur. The husband agreed to pay the
aforesaid amount of Rs.1.33 Crores in the year 2011. It is the
26
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
contention of the wife that the husband has to pay interest as agreed
before the Lok Adalat on the said amount.
48. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the husband, on instructions, would submit that it is the wife, who turn
round and violated the terms of compromise recorded in Ex.P10
before the Lok Adalat in PLC No.29 of 2011 and the terms of
compromise recorded vide Ex.P14 in O.P. No.135 of 2011. Therefore,
she is not entitled for the aforesaid agreed amount.
49. As discussed above, the husband agreed to pay the said
amount of Rs.1.33 Crores. The wife is 49 years old at present. She is
suffering from cancer and she is staying with her parents. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that there is no possibility of reunion
of the parties. She is entitled for the said amount of Rs.1,33,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore and Thirty Three Lakhs Only).
50. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals
filed by the appellant – wife vide FCA Nos.59 and 61 of 2016 are
dismissed confirming the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by learned
XV Additional Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar in
27
KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA Nos.59 & 61 of 2016
O.P. Nos.71 and 1393 of 2014, dismissing the petition for restitution
of conjugal rights and dissolving the marriage between the appellant
and the respondent held on 03.07.1999 by way of decree of divorce.
The respondent – husband shall pay an amount of Rs.1,33,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore and Thirty Three Lakhs Only) to the appellant –
wife within three (03) months from today towards full and final
settlement of appellant – wife including maintenance and permanent
alimony etc., failing which, liberty is granted to the appellant – wife to
take steps against the respondent – husband in accordance with law.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
both the appeals shall stand closed.
___________________________
LAKSHMAN, J
___________________________
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
5th May, 2026
Mgr
[ad_1]
Source link
