JUDGMENT: K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr.Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab, learned counsel for the appellant/husband and Mr.Shaikh Mohammed Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent/wife. 2. In all the three appeals, appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 04.11.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. It is the specific contention of the appellant/husband that immediately after the marriage, respondent joined his company, but not accepted to have consummation of marriage on the very first night. On the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the same was performed later on. Further, without the knowledge of the appellant, respondent got aborted the pregnancy. Respondent used to harass the appellant without cooperating him and not attending the house hold works. She used to quarrel on each and every petty matter without having any reason. 3. Respondent left the house of the appellant in his absence to her parents’ house on 30.05.2012 along with all her belongings without informing the appellant. Though he visited the respondent parents’ house, she used to threaten him that he shall not visit her, if he do so, she will initiate criminal proceedings against him. Having vexed with the behavior and attitude of the respondent, appellant got issued a legal notice dated 07.08.2012 calling upon her to join his company. However, on 18.08.2012 respondent informed the appellant over phone that he is at liberty to initiate any proceedings and she is ready to face the consequences. 4. Thus, according to the appellant, respondent subject him to cruelty and deserted him. With the said contentions, he has filed a petition under Section 10 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.531 of 2012 on the file of learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, against the respondent/wife seeking judicial separation. 5. However, respondent/wife filed counter denying the said allegations and stated that she never harassed the appellant. In fact, the appellant himself ill-treated her. She has further contended that the appellant’s parents, uncle and sister, who did not like the consummation of the marriage without giving more lanchanalu, have warned the parents of the respondent that they will see how the respondent will lead happy marital life with the appellant in their house. In fact, the appellant himself ill-treated her. She has further contended that the appellant’s parents, uncle and sister, who did not like the consummation of the marriage without giving more lanchanalu, have warned the parents of the respondent that they will see how the respondent will lead happy marital life with the appellant in their house. Further, they did not allow her to sleep with the appellant by occupying the bed and the in-laws of the respondent gone to the extent of not allowing her to have access to the appellant and to talk with him and also not to serve the food. They demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional dowry. Further, she has filed a petition under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 against the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights vide F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014 on the file of learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. 6. Perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 on the file of learned the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 7. Vide common order dated 03.07.2014, learned Family Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.531 of 2012 filed by the appellant seeking judicial separation and allowed F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014 filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Vide order dated 16.07.2017, learned Family Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed the present three appeals. 8. As discussed supra, the marriage of the appellant and respondent was performed on 04.11.2011. They stayed together for a short period. They are not staying together from the year 2012 onwards i.e., since last 13 years. 9. Perusal of the record also would reveal that the respondent/wife has lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. The same was ended in acquittal. Respondent/wife preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.70 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. She has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said application was allowed in-part, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month was awarded. Respondent/wife preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.70 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. She has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said application was allowed in-part, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month was awarded. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, both the appellant and respondent have preferred appeals vide Crl.A.Nos.89 and 104 of 2023 and the same are pending. In an appeal, the said amount was reduced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/wife, appellant/husband is not paying the said amount since last five years. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is strained relation between the appellant and respondent. They stayed together for a short period. 10. There is no dispute that neither the learned Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break-down of marriage. Further, the said aspect can be considered along with the other aspects while deciding an application filed seeking divorce or in an appeal. It is also not in dispute that the cruelty is not defined in any statute. However, we have to consider the evidence available, both oral and documentary and the allegations made by the husband to come to a conclusion as to whether the same amounts to cruelty. In the present case, appellant/husband failed to plead and prove the cruelty. On consideration of the said facts only learned Family Court dismissed the F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 11. In the light of the aforesaid factual scenario, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, on instructions, would submit that respondent/wife is also not interested to join the company of the appellant/husband. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant/husband, on instructions, would submit that the appellant is also not interested to take his wife to his society and lead marital life. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, on instructions, would further submit that an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs may be awarded to the respondent towards permanent alimony. Initially, appellant/husband agreed to pay an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs. Thereafter, respondent/wife reduced the said amount to Rs.15.00 lakhs and appellant/husband offered an amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs. 13. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, on instructions, would further submit that an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs may be awarded to the respondent towards permanent alimony. Initially, appellant/husband agreed to pay an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs. Thereafter, respondent/wife reduced the said amount to Rs.15.00 lakhs and appellant/husband offered an amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs. 13. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, though the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 04.11.2011, they have stayed together for a short period i.e., from 04.11.2011 to 30.05.2012. The appellant/husband is aged about 37 years and respondent/wife is aged about 33 years at present. It is the specific contention of the respondent/wife is that though the said amount of Rs.6,000/- was awarded by the learned Magistrate in DVC is reduced to Rs.3,000/- per month, appellant/husband is not paying the said amount since last five years. The aforesaid three criminal appeals i.e., Crl.A.Nos.70 of 2022 and 89 and 104 of 2023 are also pending. 14. In the light of the same, we are of the view that there is no possibility of reunion of parties. Therefore, we are inclined to grant decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant and respondent performed on 04.11.2011 on the condition of appellant/husband paying an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the respondent/wife towards permanent alimony. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, a) F.C.A.No.246 of 2019 is allowed by setting aside the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 by learned the Judge, Additional Family Court, Secunderabad. F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 is allowed granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant and respondent performed on 04.11.2011 on the condition of appellant/husband paying an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the respondent/wife towards permanent alimony. b) F.C.A.No.129 of 2014 is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 03.07.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.531 of 2012 passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. c) Further, F.C.A.No.150 of 2014 is allowed by setting aside the order dated 03.07.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014 passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.