JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent/husband. 2. Heard Sri Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha, learned counsel for the appellant. We have perused the record. 3. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 23.05.2003 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two children i.e., son on 16.02.2005 and daughter on 31.12.2006 out of their lawful wedlock. 4. According to the respondent/husband, appellant maintained illicit relationship with the 2 nd respondent in FCA No.201 of 2025 i.e., Mamidi Gattu and eloped with him. Thus, she has subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. On the said ground, he has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT vide O.P.No.31 of 2013 seeking dissolution of marriage. The appellant/wife has filed O.P.No.19 of 2013 under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 5. Vide order dated 09.08.2014, learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda allowed O.P.No.31 of 2013 filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Challenging the said order, F.C.A.No.201 of 2015 is filed by the appellant/wife. 6. Likewise, learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, dismissed O.P.No.19 of 2013 filed by the appellant/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, wife preferred F.C.A No.35 of 2015. 7. As discussed supra, according to the respondent/husband, appellant/wife maintained illicit relationship with the 2 nd respondent and deserted him. She had also lodged a complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 against him for the offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. She has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance vide M.C.No.1 of 2013. Therefore, according to the 1 st respondent/husband, appellant subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. 8. Respondent/wife filed counter opposing the said application i.e., in O.P.No.31 of 2013 contending that the respondent/husband filed aforesaid application only to get rid of her. He has demanded additional dowry. He has harassed her and her children. Her parents paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the month of February, 2012. Therefore, she has filed complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 with the Women Police Station, Nalgonda. He failed to maintain her and her children. He has demanded additional dowry. He has harassed her and her children. Her parents paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the month of February, 2012. Therefore, she has filed complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 with the Women Police Station, Nalgonda. He failed to maintain her and her children. Therefore, she has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The same does not amount to cruelty. In fact, he has harassed her mentally and physically. 9. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, respondent/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and his brother as P.W.2. He has filed Ex.P1/Lagna Koti date 22.05.2003, Ex.P2, copy of ration card and Ex.P3, photo along with CD. To disprove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant examined herself as R.W.1 and a panchayat elder as R.W.2. Ex.MO1, key chain was also exhibited. 10. As discussed supra, though the 1 st respondent/husband alleged cruelty and desertion against the appellant on the ground that she maintained illicit relationship with the 2 nd respondent, he failed to prove the same. He has not examined any witness to prove the same. He has examined his brother as P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 is not useful to prove the said alleged illicit intimacy of the appellant with the 2 nd respondent. 11. It is also apt to note that lodging complaint against husband by the wife for the offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not a cruel act. It is the specific allegation of the appellant/wife that the 1 st respondent/husband harassed her both physically and mentally. Panchayat was held. P.W.2 is the panchayat elder. Thus, he has harassed her both physically and mentally. 12. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C against 1 st respondent/husband vide M.C.No.1 of 2013 seeking maintenance. Filing an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not a cruel act. They have filed the said application seeking maintenance for their survival. 13. As discussed supra, 1 st respondent/husband has made serious allegations against the appellant/wife that she has maintained illicit relation with the 2 nd respondent and eloped with him. The 1 st respondent/husband has to plead and prove the same. Though, he has pleaded, he failed to prove the same by producing relevant evidence. 14. 13. As discussed supra, 1 st respondent/husband has made serious allegations against the appellant/wife that she has maintained illicit relation with the 2 nd respondent and eloped with him. The 1 st respondent/husband has to plead and prove the same. Though, he has pleaded, he failed to prove the same by producing relevant evidence. 14. P.W.2/brother of 1 st respondent/husband deposed that appellant/wife eloped with 2 nd respondent in the month of October, 2010 by taking an amount of Rs.30,000/- and since then she is living with him. He has not examined any witness nor filed any document in proof of the same. Though he has alleged that appellant has obtained an amount of Rs.10,000/- loan by mortgaging her Mangalsuthram, he has not filed any document in proof of the same and not examined any witness. Even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, they have caught the appellant/wife and 2 nd respondent red-handed while watching ‘Srimanarayana’ film. The same was also noticed by the Bathula Mallaiah, Alisetti Lingaiah and other caste elders. They have not examined any of them. Placing reliance on Ex.P3, they cannot allege wife maintaining illicit relationship with the 2 nd respondent. As discussed supra, evidence of P.W.2, brother of 1 st respondent/husband is not useful to prove the same. 15. P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied that appellant/wife and 2 nd respondent were at cinema hall and he came to know about their presence and caught hold of both of them and they beat him. 16. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 09.08.2014, learned Judge, Family Court, held that the 1 st respondent/husband failed to prove the said alleged illegal intimacy alleged to have maintained by the appellant with the 2 nd respondent. There is no challenge to the said finding by 1 st respondent/husband. 17. However, having held so, learned Judge, Family Court dissolved the marriage of the appellant with the 1 st respondent holding that she lived separately since last two years. There is no chance of the appellant coming back and staying with the 1 st respondent. 18. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground to grant decree of divorce by the Family Court. Even on the said ground, this Court cannot grant divorce. There is no chance of the appellant coming back and staying with the 1 st respondent. 18. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground to grant decree of divorce by the Family Court. Even on the said ground, this Court cannot grant divorce. Without considering the said aspects, without appreciating evidence, more particularly, the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2, learned Family Court held that the appellant/wife deserted the 1 st respondent/husband in the year 2012. The said finding of the learned Family Court is contrary to the evidence both oral and documentary. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 19. It is opt to note that MO1 i.e., key chain is exhibited in O.P.No.31 of 2013. It is opt to note that appellant/wife, with regard to the key chain, denied that 2 nd respondent is her classmate and that she maintained illicit relation with 2 nd respondent. She has also denied a suggestions that the 2 nd respondent is maintaining her and her children, she was caught with 2 nd respondent along with her children in a cinema theater and that she is running a hotel at that particular point of time. Even then, 1 st respondent/husband did not examine any witness to prove the same. 20. As discussed supra, both the appellant and the 1 st respondent were blessed with two children. They are aged 20 years and 19 years, respectively, at present. Admittedly, appellant/wife brought up the said children. It is the duty of the 1 st respondent/husband to pay maintenance to both of them and to his wife. Therefore, they have filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C vide M.C.No.1 of 2013. It is not a cruel act. 21. As discussed supra, on the mere allegations and insinuation made by the 1 st respondent/husband, neither the Family Court nor this Court can dissolve the marriage of the parties. Both the grounds on which the 1 st respondent/husband sought decree of divorce i.e., cruelty and desertion are serious in nature. The 1 st respondent/husband has to plead and prove the same by producing relevant evidence. As discussed supra, though the 1 st respondent/husband made serious allegations against the appellant/wife that she maintained illicit relationship with the 2 nd respondent, he has not proved the same. The 1 st respondent/husband has to plead and prove the same by producing relevant evidence. As discussed supra, though the 1 st respondent/husband made serious allegations against the appellant/wife that she maintained illicit relationship with the 2 nd respondent, he has not proved the same. Relying on MO1-key chain, 1 st respondent/husband cannot contend that the appellant maintained illicit relation with 2 nd respondent. 22. In the light of the said discussion, order dated 09.08.2014 in O.P.No.31 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is set aside and O.P.No.31 of 2013 is dismissed. Accordingly, FCA No.201 of 2015 is allowed. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, order dated 09.08.2014 in O.P.No.19 of 2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is set aside and O.P.No.19 of 2013 is allowed. The 1 st respondent/husband is directed to join the company of the appellant within three (3) months from today, failing which, liberty is granted to the appellant/wife to take steps in accordance with law. 24. Accordingly, both Appeals are allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.