JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. In compliance with the order dated 09.10.2025, learned counsel for the appellant has filed proof of service vide USR No.118091 of 2025, dated 27.10.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. We have heard Mr. B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 3. Appellant herein is the husband and respondent herein is the wife. Appellant/husband had filed an application under Sections 5(iii) and 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 07.09.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a female child on 05.06.2009. 4. According to the appellant, respondent subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. Appellant joined as Constable in CISF, Hyderabad, on 22.07.2002. In the year 2007, while he was working at Hyderabad, he requested the respondent that he would take a separate house and to join him at Hyderabad. Respondent did not accept the same and left the house of the appellant without informing to the parents of the appellant and staying with her parents at Gadepally, Guntur District. Subsequently, in February 2008, appellant was transferred to Vadinar, Jamnagar District, Gujarat, on his employment, respondent stayed with the appellant for about six months at Vadinar. She gave birth to a female child on 05.06.2009. Thereafter, appellant took the respondent and his daughter to Jamnagar. There respondent started humiliating the appellant by refusing to attend house hold work and also looking after the baby. Appellant used to take care of all those things. 5. It is further contended by the appellant that the respondent by taking photograph of one Srinivas who worked as PET teacher, while she was studying at Shivanagar, and used to kiss photograph of the said Srinivas before the appellant and when he questioned, respondent scolded and beat the appellant with a stick. On 03.03.2010, respondent without informing the appellant left his company along with her daughter and joined her parents. Despite making hectic efforts to get back the respondent and his child, due to adamant attitude of respondent, appellant could not succeed. On 03.03.2010, respondent without informing the appellant left his company along with her daughter and joined her parents. Despite making hectic efforts to get back the respondent and his child, due to adamant attitude of respondent, appellant could not succeed. In the last week of March, 2010, appellant went to respondent along with elders and tried to pacify the matter but respondent bluntly refused to join the society of the appellant. He made several attempts to get the company of the respondent. But, all the efforts made by him went in vain. Respondent threatened the appellant that she would commit suicide, if the appellant try to bring her to his society. 6. Respondent has also lodged a complaint against the appellant herein for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Ultimately, the said C.C. is ended in acquittal. She has also filed another criminal case against the appellant herein for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant herein. Appellant preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.17 of 2014. Vide judgment dated 28.08.2014, learned Appellate Court acquitted the appellant herein. Thus according to the appellant, respondent subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. He has also pleaded that on 28.10.2007 he took respondent to Hyderabad to a rented house from there they shifted to Vadinar in Gujarath in the month of February 2008, in view of his transfer. Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the respondent. 7. With the said contentions, he filed the aforesaid FCOP against the respondent seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. 8. Respondent filed counter claim under Section 9 read with Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights contending that she never subjected the appellant to cruelty and it is the appellant who subjected her to cruelty. She has specifically stated about the negotiations held in the presence of elders viz., G.Venkateshwarlu, Yaram Venkateshwarlu (RW.2), Poshala Kumaraswamy and Shakamuri Singa Rao and others. A panchayat was held on 24.10.2010 at Warangal. Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the appellant and he demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and refused to take the respondent to his company. 9. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant examined himself as PW.1 and a social worker as PW.2. He has filed Ex.P1 – order Part.II.No.05/2011, dated 10.01.2011. Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the appellant and he demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and refused to take the respondent to his company. 9. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant examined himself as PW.1 and a social worker as PW.2. He has filed Ex.P1 – order Part.II.No.05/2011, dated 10.01.2011. To disprove the said contentions, the respondent examined herself as RW.1 and Yaram Venkateshwarlu and Konakanchi Purnachander Rao, her relatives, as RWs.2 and 3. 10. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 27.10.2014, the learned Family Court dismissed the said FCOP filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Challenging the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal. This Court granted interim suspension on 19.01.2015. 11. Mr. B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that respondent/wife married Mr. Narender and she is staying with him. Appellant is also present in-person before this Court, he also confirmed the said fact. 12. Perusal of the record also would reveal that respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.30 of 2011 against the appellant seeking maintenance. Learned trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/wife and Rs.2,000/- to the child towards maintenance. According to the appellant, he has paid the said amount to the respondent and the child till the year 2020. He approached the respondent to take her to his company, who in turn, requested the appellant not to interfere with her marital life with Mr. Narender and she would not claim the said maintenance amount or any amount towards permanent alimony from the appellant herein. Therefore, he had stopped payment of interim maintenance to the respondent and also to the child from the year 2020 onwards. 13. Appellant is present in-person before this Court today and expressed his readiness to pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to his daughter towards her maintenance. 14. As discussed supra, despite granting opportunity, respondent did not appear before this Court. To prove cruelty and desertion, appellant examined himself as PW.1 and a social worker as PW.2. Respondent examined herself as RW.1 and her relatives as RWs.2 and 3. Learned Family Court relied on the depositions of RWs.2 and 3. 15. 14. As discussed supra, despite granting opportunity, respondent did not appear before this Court. To prove cruelty and desertion, appellant examined himself as PW.1 and a social worker as PW.2. Respondent examined herself as RW.1 and her relatives as RWs.2 and 3. Learned Family Court relied on the depositions of RWs.2 and 3. 15. In the light of the above stated facts during pendency of the present appeal and considering the fact that both the appellant and respondent are not staying together from the year 2011 onwards i.e., since last 14 years and their child is aged about 15 years at present and also respondent got married to Mr. Narender and staying with him, we are of the considered opinion that there is no possibility of continuing their marital life. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.10.2014 in F.C.A.No.210 of 2014 is set aside. F.C.O.P.No.31 of 2011 filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage is allowed and the marriage of the respondent with the appellant herein performed on 07.09.2007 is dissolved by way of decree of divorce on the condition of appellant depositing an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) drawn in any Nationalized Bank in the name of his daughter, Ms.Tanusri, and hand over the same to his daughter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent is not entitled for any permanent alimony from the appellant herein. However, it is made clear that if the appellant failed to comply with the aforesaid order, liberty is granted to his daughter to take steps against the appellant, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the said amount is towards full and final settlement to the daughter of the appellant i.e. Ms.Tanusri. She is not entitled for any claim from the appellant and can’t claim share over the properties of the appellant, service benefits, etc. 16. Accordingly, this Family Court Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.