Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1358 (TS)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2025-10-30

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.Lakshman, J. Heard Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy learned senior counsel representing Sri B. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In both the Appeals, the appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. Their marriage was performed at Sri Krishna Temple, Guruvayoor, Thrissur, Kerala State on 24.10.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs and it is an arranged marriage. 3. According to the appellant/husband, after the marriage, he and his wife went to Palakkad, where the parents of the respondent had taken a rented house, wherein they have stayed for two days. On 27.10.2011 they both went to the house of the appellant/husband at Bhopal and attended the reception of their wedding. On 30.10.2011, they both returned to Ernakulam and started living together in a house taken on rent by the appellant/husband at Kakkanad, Ernakulam since 01.11.2011. 4. The appellant/husband contended that after reaching their house at Kakkanad, the respondent/wife started behaving in a strange way and showing abnormal behavior, mental disorder like hysteria and it continued for a longer period. The appellant/husband had waited for quite a long time. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent. Thus, according to the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty. Therefore, he had filed an application under Section 13 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide FCOP No.237 of 2015 against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. 5. The respondent/wife also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide FCOP No.1771 of 2016 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. Vide order dated 16.05.2019 the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District dismissed the aforesaid FCOP No.237 of 2015 filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of the marriage and allowed the aforesaid FCOP No.1771 of 2016 filed by the respondent/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant/husband preferred the present appeals. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that to prove the cruelty, the appellant/husband examined himself as PW1 and PWs 2 to 5. He had filed Exs.P1 to P7. To disprove the same, the respondent/wife examined herself as RW1 and her father as RW2. However, she has not exhibited any documents. 7. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that to prove the cruelty, the appellant/husband examined himself as PW1 and PWs 2 to 5. He had filed Exs.P1 to P7. To disprove the same, the respondent/wife examined herself as RW1 and her father as RW2. However, she has not exhibited any documents. 7. A perusal of the record also reveal that the respondent/wife had filed case against the appellant/husband vide M.C.No.271 of 2013 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed awarding Rs.25,000/- to the wife towards maintenance. 8. According to the learned counsel, the appellant/husband has been paying the said amount to the respondent/wife. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy and learned senior counsel representing Sri B. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent also confirmed the said fact. 9. As discussed supra, the parties lived together for a short period. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them. The appellant/husband made serious allegations against the respondent/wife. Though the marriage was performed on 24.10.2011, they have stayed together for a short period. They have filed the aforesaid FCOPs in the years 2015 and 2016 for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights respectively. Even as per the appellant, they are not staying together since 2011 onwards. The appellant/husband has filed FCOP No.237 of 2015 against wife for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, therefore, he has to plead and prove the same by producing relevant evidence both oral and documentary. As the appellant/husband failed to prove the cruelty, the Family Court dismissed the FCOP filed by the appellant/husband for dissolution of the marriage. However, the Family Court allowed the FCOP filed by the respondent/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 10. FCA No.181 of 2019 was listed before this Court on 26.04.2022. On hearing both the parties, this court came to the conclusion that there is an element of settlement in the present matter, and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court for settlement. The Member Secretary, Telangana State Legal Services Authority vide letter dated 27.07.2022 informed this Court that the mediation was unsuccessful. 11. In the light of the same, we have heard Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. The Member Secretary, Telangana State Legal Services Authority vide letter dated 27.07.2022 informed this Court that the mediation was unsuccessful. 11. In the light of the same, we have heard Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. It is relevant to note that the respondent/wife is present in person before this Court on the last date of hearing and even today. We have interacted with her. She is also not interested to join the company of the appellant/husband. The said fact is also confirmed by Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions. Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that even the appellant is also not interested to join the company of the respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the appellant is ready to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony and thereafter he spoke to the appellant/husband and informed this court that the appellant is ready to pay Rs.35,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. However, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the respondent/wife has agreed for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and thereafter she has reduced it to Rs.45,00,000/-. 13. The aforesaid facts would reveal that both the appellant and the respondent are not interested to join with each other and to lead marital life. At the cost of repetition, it is apt to note that the appellant and the respondent have stayed together for a short period after marriage. At present the age of the appellant is 39 years and the age of the respondent is 36 years. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the offer made by the appellant i.e., Rs.35,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to the respondent is reasonable and justified. It is also apt to note that the appellant and the respondent do not have children out of their lawful wedlock and they stayed together only for a short period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the offer made by the appellant to pay Rs.35,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony, is reasonable and justified. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, FCA No.187 of 2019 is allowed. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the offer made by the appellant to pay Rs.35,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony, is reasonable and justified. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, FCA No.187 of 2019 is allowed. The order dated 16.05.2019 in FCOP No.237 of 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District is set aside. Thereby FCOP No.237 of 2015 is allowed and thus, the marriage of the appellant/husband performed with respondent/wife on 24.10.2011 is dissolved by way of decree of divorce on condition that the appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, FCA No.181 of 2019 is allowed and order dated 16.05.2019 in FCOP No.1771 of 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District is set aside. Thereby FCOP No.1771 of 2016 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.