Telangana High Court
Gangula Saritha vs Gangula Narahari on 6 July, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No. 214 OF 2015
ALONG WITH I.A.NOs.1 TO 4 OF 2026
Date:06 .07.2026
Between
xxxxxxxxxxx ...Appellant
And
Xxxxxxxxxxx ...Respondent
This Court passed the following
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Smt.B.Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Vipul Garg, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and
decree dated 17.10.2014 in O.P. No. 112 of 2013, passed by the
Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, the
Appellant-wife preferred the present appeal.
2
3. The Respondent-husband filed the aforesaid petition
under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter, “the Act”) seeking dissolution of marriage with the
Appellant-wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
4. The case of the Respondent-husband is that his marriage
was performed with the Appellant on 07.05.2006 at Nizamabad. It
was an arranged marriage, performed as per Hindu rites and
customs in the presence of elders and relatives. The parties lived
together happily for one month, and thereafter differences arose
between them. The Appellant-wife harassed the respondent –
husband to live separately from his family members. They stayed
in a rented house at Borgam village. Thereafter, within one month,
the Appellant-wife conceived, but continued harassing the
Respondent-husband in petty matters.
5. The Appellant-wife gave birth to a male child named
Sharath Chandra on 20.02.2007. Even after the birth of the child,
her attitude did not change. She beat the Respondent-husband with
hands and also used her nails to scratch him several times. She did
not cooperate with the Respondent-husband in leading a happy
3
matrimonial life. She refused to have a physical relationship with
the husband, and thereafter left the matrimonial home without any
reason or explanation and stayed at her parents’ home.
6. Although the Respondent-husband approached her on
various occasions, the Appellant-wife refused to accompany him.
Thus, within one year of marriage, the Appellant-wife left her
matrimonial home without informing the Respondent-husband and
stayed at her parents’ house for three months. Later, when the
Respondent-husband went to his in-laws’ house for celebrating
“Oora Panduga”, he was not allowed to enter the house and his
father-in-law abused him in filthy language, claiming that one
Srinivas was his son-in-law, and not the Respondent. Further, the
father-in-law threatened him stating that he would file a dowry
case if he did not send the Appellant-wife to her parents’ home.
7. Furthermore, the father-in-law also stated that his
daughter was in love with her brother-in-law since a long time, and
thus it is alleged by the Respondent that the marriage was
performed by way of cheating and fraud. The Appellant-wife
4
permanently deserted the Respondent-husband on 17.06.2011,
without any reasonable cause.
8. Moreover, she filed a false case against her husband and
his family members in Crime No. 301 of 2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A & 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter, “the IPC“) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. In addition to this, she also filed a Domestic
Violence case.
9. Subsequently, on 27.01.2012, a Panchayat was arranged at
Padmashali Sangam at Borgaon, in the presence of caste elders.
The elders who attended the said Panchayat did not belong to the
caste of the Respondent-husband; they threatened to kill him and
also created a galata. The elders of the Sangam sent a letter dated
07.05.2012 to the Appellant’s father for resolving the issue.
However, she rejected the said proposal vide letter dated
13.05.2012 expressing her disinclination in resolving the issue as
the matter was pending before the Court. Thereafter, another letter
dated 22.05.2012 was sent, however, the Appellant-wife did not
respond.
5
10. With the aforesaid contentions, the Respondent-husband
sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and
desertion.
11. On the contrary, the Appellant-wife filed her counter
denying the allegations made by the Respondent-husband. She
contended that her parents presented net cash of Rs. 1,75,000/-, 1.5
tulas of gold ring and chain, household articles worth Rs.
1,00,000/-, and spent huge amount of money in performing the
marriage. She contends that all the gold ornaments remain in the
possession of the Respondent-husband.
12. Further, she contended that the Respondent-husband
demanded Rs.50,000/- from her father and also the registration of
half portion of the house owned by her parents at Kotagalli,
Nizamabad in his name. On failure to meet such demands, he
threatened to kill her with a knife. He gorged a piece of cloth in her
mouth and forcibly took her signatures on blank white papers. She
also denied the allegations as to desertion and submitted that the
Respondent-husband snatched her son, and necked her out from the
house in the month of September 2011. Thus, she was living at her
6
parents’ house and she obtained the custody of her child with the
assistance of police.
13. With regard to the Panchayat, she stated that she along
with her parents attended the Panchayat dated 27.01.2012 in the
presence of caste elders. However, the Respondent-husband
continuously made derogatory statements against her and her
parents, and thus, the caste elders left the Panchayat without any
conclusion on the dispute between the parties. Further, she
contended that she suffered with mental agony on account of
baseless allegations suspecting her character made by the
Respondent-husband, which are defamatory in nature. Despite that
she was ready to join the society of the Respondent for the sake of
the minor child and to save the marriage.
14. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the
petition.
15. To prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion, the
Respondent-husband examined himself as P.W.1, and further
examined P.W.2 to 6, and filed Exs. A1 to A6. P.W.2 is a Sangam
member, P.W.3 is an elder from the Panchayat, P.W.4 is also a
7
Sangam member, P.W.5 is a neighbour residing at the Borgam
village, and P.W.6 is the landowner/house owner. Ex. A1 is the
wedding card; Ex. A2 is the ‘marriage photograph’; Ex. A3 is the
letter dated 07.05.2012 attested by the President of the Sangam;
Ex. A4 is the letter dated 13.05.2012 addressed to Bheemaraya
Padmashali Sangam; Ex. A5 is the letter dated 22.05.2012 issued
by the President of Bheemaraya Padmashali Sangam, Nizamabad
to Pattana Padmashli Sangam; and Ex. A6 is the ‘CD’ consisting
video related to non-cooperation of the Appellant in respect of
family duties towards her son and husband.
16. To disprove the claims of the Respondent-husband, the
Appellant-wife examined herself as R.W.1. One of the caste elders
was examined as R.W.2. She filed Ex. B1 (Oppanda
Patramu/Lagna Patrika), which consists the details of the valuables
presented to the Respondent during the marriage, i.e., Rs.
1,75,000/- cash, 1.5 tulas of gold, a motorcycle, and household
articles.
17. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and
documentary, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014, the learned
8
Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty
and desertion by dissolving the marriage between the parties.
Assailing the said Order, the Appellant-wife preferred the present
appeal.
18. We have heard Smt. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Vipul Garg, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent extensively.
19. As discussed supra, the Respondent-husband filed the
aforesaid OP under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act against the
Appellant-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion.
20. Perusal of the record would reveal that there is no
dispute regarding the marriage dated 07.05.2006 between the
parties. There are specific allegations with regard to cruelty and
desertion made by the Respondent herein. There are specific
allegations with regard to dowry harassment and domestic violence
made by the Appellant herein.
21. P.W.1, the Respondent herein, repeated his averments as
mentioned in the petition. In his cross-examination, it was elicited
9
that when he visited the house of the Appellant-wife for Oora
Panduga, the child was six months old. Further, with regard to
Panchayats, it was elicited that despite the presence of his caste
Sangams in his village, he approached the Sangam of Nizamabad,
as the Appellant-wife did not respond to the Sangam of his village.
22. P.W.2, the President of the Padmashali Sangam,
Gayathrinagar deposed about addressing Ex. A3 letter to
Markandeya Sangam, Kotagally; receiving Ex. A4 reply from
Bheemaraya Padmashali Sangam; and Ex. A5 letter addressing
Pattana Padmashali Sangam. He further deposed that the President
of Pattana Padmashali Sangam conducted a counselling session
between the parties, however the counselling was not successful on
account of non-cooperation of both the parties. In his cross-
examination, it was further elicited that the Respondent herein was
working as a Teacher in a Private School at Nizamabad. Moreover,
he stated that the Respondent was also the Joint Secretary of the
said Sangam.
23. P.W. 3, Vice-President of the Padmashali Sangam
deposed regarding the Panchayat dated 27.01.2012 held at
10
Padmashali Sangam at Borgam. He stated that since elders
belonging to the other caste attended the Panchayat on behalf of the
Appellant-wife, he requested them not to participate. However,
those elders made an attempt to beat the mother of the Respondent-
husband. Further, he deposed about a letter of the Bheemaraya
Sangam addressed to the Sangam at Kotagally requesting to
conduct counselling for the parties, however, the said Sangam
refused to participate and no compromise was reached. Thereafter,
the Appellant-wife lodged a complaint and left the child with the
Respondent for six months. Later, on another police complaint, she
obtained the custody of the child. In his cross-examination, it was
elicited that the Appellant-wife lodged complaints twice; the first
one was pertaining to pouring kerosene on her, and the second one
was regarding the custody of the child.
24. P.W.4, the President of the Padmashali Sangam, deposed
that around five years ago, he along with few others conducted the
Panchayat at Borgam village for around four to five times. Despite
that the Appellant-wife left the company of the Respondent-
husband, leaving the child with him. Further, he deposed that the
11
Appellant-wife brought persons belonging to other caste to the
Panchayat. He also stated that the parties lived in a rented house at
Nizamabad for four months, thereafter resided in their own house
at Borgam village, then shifted to the house of Ega Srinivas, and
later resided at the house of P.W.6. While residing at the house of
P.W.6, Panchayats were conducted four times, and she was brought
back to his house for three to four times. When she was questioned
as to why she was frequently leaving the house of the Respondent-
husband, she replied that she was staying at her sister’s house, and
her husband should pick her up while returning home. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he brought gundas and
was responsible for not conducting the Panchayat smoothly. He
stated that the Appellant-wife left the company of the Respondent
in January, 2012. It was also elicited that he did not file any ID
card to show that he was the President of the Sangam at the
relevant time.
25. P.W.5, the neighbour residing at Borgam village also
deposed regarding the parties living together in a rented house at
Borgam, and thereafter at their residence in Nizamabad. He further
12
deposed regarding the parties residing in the houses owned by
Potana, Srinivas Reddy, and Goud. He stated that the Appellant-
wife left the company of the Respondent and got the custody of the
child with the assistance of police. In his cross-examination, it was
elicited that he deposed based on what he heard.
26. P.W.6, Govind Goud, deposed that the parties lived in
his house as tenants for two years. The Appellant-wife used to
quarrel with the Respondent-husband, while he advised them to
live amicably. He further deposed that she went to her parents’
house, leaving her son at the Respondent’s house. He questioned
her as to why she frequently left the house, but she never gave a
proper reply. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that he did
not file any proof to show that he was the owner of the house. He
did not file the Rent Agreement executed by him and the
Respondent before the Court.
27. On the contrary, R.W.1, the Appellant herein, repeated
her averments as mentioned in the counter. However, she made an
improvement in her chief examination that on demand of money by
13
the Respondent-husband, her parents paid Rs. 50,000/- to him after
the birth of the child.
28. R.W.2, the Ex-Joint Secretary, Padmashali Sangam of
Ashok Veedhi, Tharpa No.1, Kotagally, Nizamabad deposed with
respect to Ex. B1 (copy of Lagnapatrika). He further deposed that
the parents of the Appellant-wife gave Rs. 50,000/- to the
Respondent-husband on the birth of their son. He stated that in the
month of September 2011, the Respondent forcefully snatched the
minor son and necked the Appellant out of his house, and since
then she has been residing at her parents’ house. He also deposed
about the Panchayat convened on 27.01.2012, wherein the
Respondent-husband and his supporters created galata in the
Sangam. He also referred to the letter received from Bheemaraya
Padmashali Sangam for settlement of disputes between the parties,
however, as the Respondent-husband did not belong to the said
Sangam, they did not respond.
29. The Learned Family Court on consideration of the
material on record and evidences, both oral and documentary,
14
elaborately discussed the same, and gave findings on several
aspects.
30. As discussed supra, the Respondent-husband filed the
aforesaid petition against the Appellant-wife seeking dissolution of
marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, he has
to plead and prove the same, by producing reliable and cogent
evidence.
31. It is apt to note that ‘cruelty’ is not defined in any statute.
This Court has to consider the allegations made by the Respondent-
husband evidence both oral and documentary and assess as to
whether the same amounts to cruelty or not.
32. It is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh1 observed that human mind is
extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated.
Similarly human ingenuity has no bounds; 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
1
(2007) 4 SCC 511.
15
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.
33. In Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita 2, the Hon’ble
Supreme 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 are relevant factors
which a Court must take into consideration.
34. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli3, the Hon’ble Supreme
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
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 497.
3
(2006) 4 SCC 558.
16
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.
35. In Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh4, the Supreme
Court observed that marriage, in its legal and constitutional
dimension, can never be reduced to a mere contractual intersection
of individual rights, nor can it be viewed strictly through the
narrow lens of a petition for conjugal rights. It is a deeply personal
and social partnership built on mutual respect, shared expectations
and equal responsibility. When two parties enter into matrimony,
they weave a tapestry of interdependence that demands a
continuous balancing of interests. Conjugal rights do not exist in a
vacuum; they are the structural counterparts to conjugal duties. To
demand the fulfillment of the former while willfully abandoning
the sanctity of the latter is to undermine the very essence of the
institution. Matrimony, therefore, is not a one-sided right to be
enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity,
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1063
17
responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always tied to
the duties they owe to the other. Persistent withdrawal from the
foundational aspects of marriage may have legal consequences
while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty.
36. In the light of the aforesaid principle laid down by the
Apex Court, coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is not
disputed that the parties got married on 07.05.2006. Out of the
wedlock, a male child named Sharath Chandra was born on
20.02.2007. However, the parties lived together happily only for a
short period. The period for which they lived together is disputed.
37. As discussed supra, it is the Respondent-husband who
has to plead and prove cruelty. According to him, the Appellant-
wife used to go to her parents’ house frequently and did not stay
with him. He was harassed by her both mentally and physically.
Moreover, his father-in-law abused him in filthy language when he
visited their house for the “Oora Panduga”. Initially, she left the
house of the Respondent, leaving their child with him. Later, with
the assistance of police, she obtained the custody of the child. He
was informed by his father-in-law that the Appellant had an affair
18
with her brother-in-law even before the marriage. The Appellant
also claimed that she did not need a husband, and she did not
conceive through him. Moreover, she filed false criminal cases of
dowry harassment and domestic violence against him and his
family members.
38. Perusal of the evidence on record i.e., Exs. A3 to A5
would reveal that the Respondent-husband made attempts to
resolve the disputes between parties by convening Panchayats. The
Panchayat convened on 27.01.2012 did not yield any result, but the
reason for its failure is disputed.
39. Basis the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.6, it can
be observed that the Appellant-wife deserted the Respondent, as
she frequently went to her parents’ house and did not stay with her
husband. She did not even give any proper explanation for the
same. She stayed with the Respondent only for a short period of
time after marriage. She chose to stay at either her sister’s house at
Nandipet, or her parents’ house. Appellant (R.W.1), R.W.2, during
their cross-examination admitted that Appellant left the company
of respondent in September, 2011. However, according to them,
19
she was forced to leave the company of respondent. During cross-
examination, R.W.1 (wife) categorically admitted that after her
marriage, she joined the respondent – husband, lived in in-law’s
house. She blessed with a son in the year 2007 while she was
staying in the said house. She lived in her in-law’s house till 2008
after the marriage. They lived in a rented house of Srinivasa Reddy
for some time after 2008 of the same village. They lived in the said
house on rent for five or six months. Thereafter, they shifted the
residence to her in-law’s house till the criminal case is filed.
Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant-wife did not file
any petition under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal
rights. R.W.2 evidence is not useful to the appellant to disprove the
cruelty and desertion. On the other hand, respondent – husband
examined P.Ws.2 to 6 to specifically depose about the desertion on
17.06.2011. Respondent made all efforts to bring her back but the
same became futile. It is also not in dispute that at the instance of
appellant, police registered a case against the respondent and his
family members for the offences punishable under Section 498-A
of IPC and 506 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
20
Prohibition Act. The police arrested the respondent, he was in jail
for five days. The Investigating Officer, on completion of
investigation, laid charge sheet against the respondent and deleted
the names of brother and sisters of the respondent. It is also not in
dispute that appellant had also filed an application under Section
12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Caste elders of the appellant and
respondent tried to resolve the issues and they could not. The said
facts would reveal that the appellant deserted the respondent and
subjected him to cruelty. As discussed supra, at the cost of
repetition, appellant did not file any application under Section 9 of
the Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. This shows that she
did not intend to resume marital life with the Respondent.
40. In the present case, it is apt to note that when the O.P.
was filed, the Appellant was 27 years old and the Respondent was
31 years old. At present, they are 40 years old and 44 years old
respectively. They have been living separately for more than 15
years. There is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. There is no
dispute that neither the Family Court nor this Court can grant
decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
21
marriage. However, the said aspects can be considered along with
the other aspects. It is also not in dispute that cruelty is not defined
in any statute, however, the Family Court and this Court can
consider the allegations made by the husband seeking divorce and
see as to whether the same amounts to cruelty.
41. On appreciation of the said evidence, both oral and
documentary, the learned Family Court held that it is a fit case for
granting divorce. It is a reasoned order and well founded.
Appellant herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the
said order.
42. The Appellant-wife filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in the
present appeal to receive additional evidence to contend that the
attitude of the Respondent herein in respect of non-payment of
maintenance even after lapse of eleven years from the decree of
divorce being granted. She sought to place additional evidence in
respect of the miscellaneous petitions filed by her for recovery of
maintenance amount. Further, she sought this Court to grant
permanent alimony in the interest of justice. If the respondent fails
to pay the maintenance as awarded by the learned Magistrate in
22
DVC and in an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it is
for the Appellant to take steps in accordance with law. In the light
of the aforesaid discussion and that the order passed by the learned
Family Court is reasoned, there is no error in it, this application is
liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
43. The Respondent-husband also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2026 in
the present appeal to receive additional evidence regarding the
subsequent developments that took place pertaining to the criminal
cases and the maintenance case filed against him by the Appellant
herein, after the judgment was passed in O.P. No. 112 of 2013. As
discussed supra, we have held that the impugned order passed by
Family court is reasoned, this application is dismissed.
44. Further, the Respondent filed I.A. No. 3 of 2026 stating
that the Appellant-wife made intentionally false statements
regarding non-payment of maintenance in her affidavit in I.A. No.
1 of 2026, and thereby committed the offence of perjury under
Sections 227, 229, 236, and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. He sought to register a criminal case against the Appellant
herein for perjury under Section 379 r/w Section 215 of the
23
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As discussed supra,
we have confirmed the order passed by the Family Court granting
divorce and therefore, we are not inclined to delve into the aspect
of perjury. Thus, I.A. No. 3 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed.
45. Subsequently, the Appellant-wife filed I.A. No. 4 of
2026, seeking an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards permanent
alimony. She has filed the said application under Section 151 of
CPC. Appellant contended that respondent did not pay the
maintenance amount awarded by the learned Magistrate and also
referred about the petitions filed under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C.,
Crl.R.C. No.1914 of 2018 etc. Respondent is a practising advocate
and he is earning lot of money and therefore, she is entitled for the
said amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. Respondent disputed the same.
Therefore, there are disputed facts. However, no separate
application was filed under Section 25 of the Act, seeking
permanent alimony. The said provision expressly mentions that a
party seeking permanent alimony has to make an application for
the same and prove the claim of permanent alimony by producing
the evidence including filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and
24
liabilities of the parties. In the present case, the Appellant has not
filed any application. If the Appellant wants permanent alimony,
she may make an application as required under the Section 25 of
the Act before the appropriate forum, adduce evidence both oral
and documentary in support of the same.
46. In Sukhdev Singh vs. Sukhbir Kaur5, three Judge
Bench framed the following questions:
(i) Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void by a competent
Court under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to claim
permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the
1955 Act?
(ii) Whether in a petition filed seeking a declaration under Section 11
of the 1955 Act, a spouse is entitled to seek maintenance
pendente lite under Section 24 of the 1955 Act?
47. Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the above
questions as follows:
(i) A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section
11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or
maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the
1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be
granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the
conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is
always discretionary; and
(ii) Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the
marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the5
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 299
25final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is
not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided
the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While
deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court
will always take into consideration the conduct of the party
seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is
always discretionary.
48. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs.
Sukhbir Kaur6, considering the scope and ambit of Section 25 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, held that the relief of permanent alimony
can be granted in the matters of decrees under Section 11 of the
Act, as well. However, it depends on the facts of the case and
conduct of the applicant. The Court has to take into consideration
the conduct of the party seeking the relief and the relief is always
discretionary. Since the application for interim maintenance was
raised by the wife in the first appeal before the High Court, there
was no evidence before the Court to decide on the aspect of
maintenance and quantum. Thus, the matter was referred back to
the Family Court to decide in respect of grant of interim
maintenance and permanent alimony under Sections 24 and 25 of
6
Order dated 04.06.2026 in Civil Appeal Nos.2536 and 4726 of 2019
26
the Act, after giving due opportunity to the parties for leading
evidence.
49. In the light of the same, as discussed supra, even in the
case on hand, there was no application filed by the appellant – wife
before the Family Court under Section 25 of the Act, seeking
permanent alimony. Even in the present appeal, she did not file any
application under Section 25 of the Act, seeking permanent
alimony. She has filed the aforesaid application under Section 151
of CPC, seeking permanent alimony of Rs.50 Lakhs for the first
time. The appellant herein did not file any supporting documents
or material in support of her claim of Rs.50 Lakhs, towards
permanent alimony. Therefore, in the absence of the same, more
particularly, affidavits declaring assets and liabilities of the parties
as held by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha7, this Court is not
in a position to decide the quantum and permanent alimony as
claimed by the appellant.
50. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kuldeep
7
2021) 2 SCC 324,
27
Rai v. Smt. Rita 8. Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of
a specific application, we are not inclined towards awarding
permanent alimony to the Appellant-wife. Thus, I.A. No. 4 of 2026
is accordingly dismissed.
51. In the light of the above, the impugned Order dated
17.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court in O.P. 112 of 2013
dissolving the marriage of the Appellant-wife with the Respondent-
husband solemnized on 07.05.2006 by way of granting divorce,
does not warrant any interference. Therefore, this Appeal is liable
to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order
dated 17.10.2024 passed in O.P. 112 of 2013 by the learned Family
Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Nizamabad dissolving the
marriage of the Appellant-wife with the Respondent-husband
solemnized on 07.05.2006 by way of granting divorce. However,
liberty is granted to the Appellant-wife to seek permanent alimony
by initiating appropriate legal proceedings. As discussed supra,
I.A.Nos. 1 to 4 of 2026 are dismissed. However, there is no order
as to costs.
8
2024 SCC OnLine MP 9656.
28
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
the appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Date:6th July, 2026
vvr
