Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1317 (TS)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2025-10-28

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We have heard Smt. P. Sujatha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. We have perused the record. 2. The marriage of appellant/husband with respondent No.1/wife was performed on 20.02.2011 as per Muslim rites and customs and it is an arranged marriage. They blessed with a female child on 19.11.2011. They have obtained decree of divorce on 08.11.2012 under Ex.A3 the divorce certificate. 3. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 3 (2) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights) on Divorce Act, 1986 vide FCMC No.27 of 2013 against the appellant, respondent Nos.2 to 7, seeking Rs.10,00,000/- towards maintenance, contending that the appellant herein possessed residential house at Manakondur worth of Rs.8,00,000/- and also agricultural land admeasuring Ac.14.00 guntas at Manakondur and Bhoopalapally worth of Rs.80,00,000/-. The appellant used to do rexine works. The respondent No.1 has narrated the said facts in detail in the aforesaid petition filed by her. 4. The appellant herein filed counter admitting marital relation and also obtaining divorce vide Ex.A3 divorce certificate. However, the appellant denied about the demand of dowry as pleaded by the respondent No.1. He had also contended that respondent No.1 had lodged a complaint against him for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code. The mother of the appellant was also arrested. The appellant further contended that a panchayath was held in the presence of Mohammed Rafiuddin and others and also in the presence of Mohad. Jameeludin, Advocate (RW2) on 08.12.2012. It was decided that the appellant herein has to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- net amount, mehar amount of Rs.50,000/-, kakatiya necklace, two ear rings, two sarasari, two finger rings and one locket, but appellant has not returned. The appellant has agreed for total amount of Rs.5,37,500/-. They have also entered into an agreement on specific terms and conditions mentioned therein and the same was marked as Ex.A8. Even then, the appellant has not paid the said amount. 5. In proof of her claim, the respondent No.1 examined herself as PW1 and her father as PW2. The respondent No.1 had filed Exs.A1 to A9 documents. Resisting the said claim of respondent No.1, the appellant examined himself as RW1 and Sri Jameeluddin, Advocate as RW2. The appellant had filed Exs.R1 to R5 documents. 6. 5. In proof of her claim, the respondent No.1 examined herself as PW1 and her father as PW2. The respondent No.1 had filed Exs.A1 to A9 documents. Resisting the said claim of respondent No.1, the appellant examined himself as RW1 and Sri Jameeluddin, Advocate as RW2. The appellant had filed Exs.R1 to R5 documents. 6. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 30.01.2015, the learned Family Court – cum – Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar allowed the said application in part granting an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as fair and reasonable provision of maintenance. The learned Family Court also considered Ex.R4 registered sale deed bearing document No.2465 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013. The learned Family Court directed the appellant herein to pay the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within three months. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Vide order dated 09.03.2015, this Court granted interim stay on condition of appellant depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of FCMC No.37 of 2013 within a period of two months from the said date. Vide order dated 18.01.2017, this Court permitted the respondent No.1 to withdraw the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- without furnishing any security. Smt. P. Sujatha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, on instructions submitted that the appellant had already deposited the said amount in compliance with the said order and the respondent No.1 had withdrawn the said amount. 8. Despite granting of opportunity, even today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 9. As discussed supra, there is no dispute with regard to the marital status and that they have obtained divorce vide Ex.A3 divorce certificate. It is also not in dispute that they blessed with a girl child on 19.11.2011 and at present she is aged 14 years. Ex.R4 is the registered sale deed bearing document No.2465 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013, under which the appellant had purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.1131/A situated at Manakondur Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. It is apt to note that both the appellant and respondent No.1 obtained divorce under Ex.A3 on 08.11.2012 and thereafter the appellant had purchased the aforesaid land under the aforesaid registered sale deed on 30.03.2013. 10. It is apt to note that both the appellant and respondent No.1 obtained divorce under Ex.A3 on 08.11.2012 and thereafter the appellant had purchased the aforesaid land under the aforesaid registered sale deed on 30.03.2013. 10. It is also not in dispute that both the appellant and respondent No.1 have entered into Ex.A8 agreement dated 18.12.2012, wherein the appellant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,37,500/- to the respondent No.1 within three months from the said date. There are two witnesses to the said agreement including RW2. 11. As discussed supra, it is specific contention of the appellant herein that a panchayath was held in the presence of RW2 Jameeluddin, Advocate on 08.12.2012 and it was decided that the appellant has to pay Rs.3,00,000/- net amount, mehar amount of Rs.50,000/-, kakatiya necklace, two ear rings, two sarasari, two finger rings and one locket, however, he did not pay the same. 12. It is also apt to note that both the appellant and respondent No.1 have entered into an agreement under Ex.R3 agreement dated 26.03.2013. In the said agreement, they have narrated all the facts including Ex.A8 agreement dated 18.12.2012, in which the appellant agreed to pay Rs.5,37,500/- and also return aforesaid articles to the respondent No.1. Even then he has not paid the said amount. 13. It is relevant to note that vide Ex.R3 agreement, the appellant agreed to repay the debt amount of Rs.5,37,500/- and also to return the gold ornaments on or before 30.06.2013 and on such repayment, the respondent No.1 agreed to execute cancellation of the registered sale deed of conveyance in respect of aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas. In case, the appellant fails to repay the said agreed amount on or before 30.06.2013, the respondent No.1 was at liberty to sell away the said property to any person and that appellant shall not claim or raise any objection in respect of the said land. The respondent No.1 shall clear the due amount of Manapppuram gold loan and take back her ornaments mentioned therein. The appellant also agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to their daughter till the marriage of respondent No.1 and after the marriage of respondent No.1, she shall give back the baby to the appellant as agreed in the agreement Ex.A8 dated 18.12.2012. It was also agreed that the furniture presented at the time of marriage is returned to respondent No.1 under due acknowledgement. It was also agreed that the furniture presented at the time of marriage is returned to respondent No.1 under due acknowledgement. 14. On considering the said evidence, more particularly, Ex.A8 agreement dated 18.12.2012, Ex.R3 agreement dated 26.03.2013 and Ex.R4 registered sale deed bearing document No.2465 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013, the learned Family Court granted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent No.1, and directed the appellant to pay the said amount within two months. 15. During the course of hearing, Smt. P. Sujatha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 also brought to the notice of this court that the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.223 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Family Court vide impugned order, however, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.10.2017. The learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of the said order, it is placed on record. 16. Despite granting opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. As discussed supra, learned Family Court granted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondent No.1 towards maintenance on consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary evidence. It is a reasoned order and well founded. The appellant failed to establish any ground to interfere with the said order. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.