JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. We have heard Sri Sritharam, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.B.S. Narasimha Anudeep, learned counsel for the Appellant - wife. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent - husband. 2. The Family Court Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 16.06.2014 in F.C.O.P No.262 of 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties held on 28.05.2005. 3. The appellant is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The Respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP No. 262 of 2010 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, against the appellant – wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion contending as follows: i. His marriage with the appellant herein was performed on 28.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs. ii. It was an arranged marriage, and they were blessed with a female child on 17.11.2006, namely, Siri Chandana. iii. At the time of marriage, he was working in M/s. Bal Pharma Limited. After few months of marriage, appellant started demanding him to live separately from his parents and began to harass him. iv. She did not cooperate in maintaining conjugal relationship. Consequently, the respondent put up separate residence in Warangal and started living away from his aged parents from October 2007. v. Appellant used to restrict him from visiting his parents and demanded to hand over his entire salary to her. vi. During the said period, while they were living separately, she made a false allegation that her husband had attempted to kill her by leaking LPG Gas. vii. On his transfer to Hubli, Karnataka, on promotion, he informed her that he would require 4–5 months to complete his training, to find out suitable accommodation and requested her to vacate the rented house and stay with her parents in the meantime. viii. When he met with an accident at Hubli and was bedridden, despite being informed, she did not care to visit him. ix. Due to her constant harassment, he was compelled to submit his resignation in October 2008. Subsequently, she lodged a complaint on 29.10.2008 against him and his family members. viii. When he met with an accident at Hubli and was bedridden, despite being informed, she did not care to visit him. ix. Due to her constant harassment, he was compelled to submit his resignation in October 2008. Subsequently, she lodged a complaint on 29.10.2008 against him and his family members. x. On 15.11.2008, he was forced to give an undertaking stating that if he secured employment, he would take her to the place of his posting by 01.12.2008. However, as he could not secure any job till the end of December 2008, he was advised to resume the conjugal relationship, but the wife refused to join him. xi. Appellant approached the DSP, Hanumakonda, on 18.01.2009. Both parties were called, and the DSP admonished the wife and her father, advising her to join the husband, to which she initially agreed. xii. The appellant made unreasonable demands for structural modifications to the house and stated that unless these demands were met, she would not join the company of the husband. xiii. Owing to such conduct of the wife, the Respondent/Husband filed F.C.O.P. No. 262 of 2010 seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Appellant/Wife did not join the society of the husband since 2009. On these grounds, he sought dissolution of the marriage. 4. The appellant filed counter, denying the claim of the respondent, contending as follows:- i. She never subjected the husband to cruelty as alleged. At the time of marriage, her parents presented an amount of Rs.2,00,000/– in cash, two shutters at Mangapet, and other household articles towards dowry. ii. She sought to live separately due to the distance from her workplace and to avoid harassment from her in-laws, who restricted her from taking care of her child. After the marriage, her in-laws allegedly started harassing her mentally and physically, demanding an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/– towards dowry. iii. Her husband attempted to kill her by leaking LPG gas and on 10.02.2008, a panchayat was held in which the husband was found fault. The husband was admonished and she was sent back to the matrimonial home. iv. He had promised to take her to Hubli within three months, but upon his transfer, he failed to provide his address. iii. Her husband attempted to kill her by leaking LPG gas and on 10.02.2008, a panchayat was held in which the husband was found fault. The husband was admonished and she was sent back to the matrimonial home. iv. He had promised to take her to Hubli within three months, but upon his transfer, he failed to provide his address. v. On 15.11.2008, he gave an undertaking that he would take care of his wife and child by arranging a separate house within a week or by 28.11.2008 but he failed to do so. vi. On 18.01.2009, DSP called both parties and held counseling in which he promised to take her back to the matrimonial home. vii. As he never took care of her or their child and failed to provide maintenance, there was no desertion on the part of the wife; rather, due to the acts of her husband and his family members, she was compelled to stay at her parents’ house. viii. She gave reply dated 12.12.2008 to the legal notice dated 28.11.2008 issued by the husband denying the said allegations. 5. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the said OP filed by the husband. 6. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, husband examined himself as PW-1, his mother as PW-2, his relative as PW-3 and his maternal Uncle as PW-4 and marked Ex.A-1 – Marriage Photograph, Ex. A-2 – Legal notice issued to the appellant/Wife dated 29.11.2008, Ex.P3 – Rejoinder to the reply notice dated 02.02.2009, Ex.A-4 – Postal receipt, Ex.A-5 – Postal Acknowledgement, Ex.A-6 – Reply notice given by the Appellant/Wife. Opposing the said petition, the wife examined herself as RW-1 and her relative as RW-2 and marked Ex.B-1 – Letter dated 15.11.2008 addressed to D.S.P. Hanamkonda by the husband. 7. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 16.06.2014, the learned Family Court granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage held between the appellant and respondent on 28.05.2005 holding as follows:- i. The appellant – wife never issued any legal notice nor filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which shows that she has no intention to resume marital life. ii. Her evidence was inconsistent that she denied asking for separate residence but admitted it elsewhere. iii. The appellant – wife deserted the respondent – husband in the year 2008 without any justifiable reason. iv. ii. Her evidence was inconsistent that she denied asking for separate residence but admitted it elsewhere. iii. The appellant – wife deserted the respondent – husband in the year 2008 without any justifiable reason. iv. The matrimonial disputes and the failure of mediation shows that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, leaving no scope for reunion. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the wife preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2014 in F.C.O.P No.262 of 2010 passed by the learned Family Court. 9. As discussed supra, the marriage of the husband with the wife was performed on 28.05.2005. They are blessed with one daughter aged 19 years at present. The husband was working at M/s Bal Pharma Limited, Warangal, at the time of marriage. He filed the aforesaid petition vide F.C.O.P. No.262 of 2010 against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, the burden lies on him to plead and prove the said cruelty and desertion. To establish the same, he narrated the above facts, more particularly the attitude of the wife and her demand to live separately. To prove the same, he examined himself as PW-1, his mother as PW-2, and his relative as PW-3 and his maternal Uncle as PW-4. 10. There is also no dispute that the wife lodged a complaint against the husband before the Police Station, which was closed by the Police on the ground that Husband has given an undertaking to take care of his wife. 11. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 reveals that the appellant - wife, with the support of her father, insisted on living separately and did not cooperate in leading a conjugal life. There is serious allegation against her that she abused her husband in the presence of his parents and relatives and demanded him to hand over his entire salary to her. P W. 2 to 4 deposed in the said lines apart from husband himself as P.W.1. Even then, nothing was elicited during cross examination. 12. There is also a serious allegation against her that she abused her husband in filthy language, leading to an abrupt end of the Meeting/Panchayat held on 10.02.2008 at Amrutha Gardens, Hanamakonda. P W. 2 to 4 deposed in the said lines apart from husband himself as P.W.1. Even then, nothing was elicited during cross examination. 12. There is also a serious allegation against her that she abused her husband in filthy language, leading to an abrupt end of the Meeting/Panchayat held on 10.02.2008 at Amrutha Gardens, Hanamakonda. Thus according to PW.1, he mentally disturbed due to the said incident and attempted to commit suicide by jumping into Bhadrakali Tank but was rescued by his friends. The depositions of P.W 1 to 4 reveal the said fact. Even then, nothing was elicited from them during Cross-examination. 13. It is apt to note that PW.2, Mother of Husband deposed that she has no objection if both parties live together. Even then, Parties did not make any effort to join and stay together to lead happy matrimonial life. 14. It is also apt to note that PWs.3 and 4, Maternal Uncles of Husband confirmed the strained relations between the couple but denied the allegations of any attempt to harm the wife or her child. 15. From the cross-examination of RW.1 (wife), it is evident that she admitted receipt of gold bangles for the child and acknowledged living separately since 2008 without filing any petition for restitution or notice to resume cohabitation. Her willingness to rejoin was conditional upon the husband living away from his parents, which cannot be treated as bona fide. She failed to prove any specific act of cruelty or dowry demand and produced no documentary evidence. Except for one complaint made, which was taken back upon undertaking, no grievance was raised during cohabitation, and her persistent insistence on separation caused mental cruelty. 16. However, PW.1 specifically deposed that after receiving the reply notice from the wife expressing willingness to join him, the husband made no sincere attempt to restore cohabitation or to arrange a separate residence as undertaken before the mediators. He did not make any effort to take the custody of the minor child or seeking visitation rights. This omission reflects his lack of bona fide intention to resume the marital relationship. 17. He did not make any effort to take the custody of the minor child or seeking visitation rights. This omission reflects his lack of bona fide intention to resume the marital relationship. 17. Perusal of the record with regard to alleged Deepavali incident in October 2008, wherein the wife claims to have been assaulted by the husband’s maternal uncles, Rajender and Venkata Ramana (P.W.4), Appellant – wife in her chief examination deposed that upon invitation by Rajender, she visited his house along with her child and two minor relatives. During such visit, she was beaten and threatened with a revolver. But however, she failed to elicit the said facts from P.W.4 or P.W.1. In proof of the same, she has examined her cousin as R.W.2 who specifically deposed about the said incident. However, during cross- examination, nothing was elicited. But during the cross-examination, R.W-2 categorically admitted that she was 14 years in 2008, during the said alleged incident. It is also apt to note that appellant – Wife did not lodge any complaint against the said Venkatramana and Rajender on the said incident. However, no documentary proof of the alleged assault or medical treatment was produced before the Court. 18. On the contrary, PW-4, who was one of the persons that threatened her, specifically denied the said incident and stated that respondent - husband was at Hubli on the date of the alleged incident. In the absence of credible and corroborative evidence, the allegation of physical assault during the Deepavali festival in 2008 remains unsubstantiated. 19. It is also apt to note that appellant wife has lodged a complaint against her husband before Family Counselling Centre/DSP, who in turn called respondent – Husband and conducted counselling wherein Respondent – Husband submitted Ex. B.1 Letter dated 15.11.2008 to DSP, Family Counselling Centre Hanumakonda, stating that he was jobless as on the said date, he will search for a job within 15 days i.e by 1 st December and then take his wife back. Otherwise, he will take his wife to the place of his convenience and lead marital life. He will also inform his address and take his wife from the Counselling Centre. 20. The aforesaid discussion would reveal that there is strained relations between appellant –wife and respondent - husband. On the complaint lodged by her, DSP Hanamakonda, called her husband to counseling wherein he has submitted Ex. B.1 letter. He will also inform his address and take his wife from the Counselling Centre. 20. The aforesaid discussion would reveal that there is strained relations between appellant –wife and respondent - husband. On the complaint lodged by her, DSP Hanamakonda, called her husband to counseling wherein he has submitted Ex. B.1 letter. There is also a specific allegation that she has demanded her husband to set up separate family and restricted respondent and his parent’s movements into their house and also visitation rights of their child. Respondent – Husband attempted to commit suicide due to the incident during panchayat held on 10.02.2008. There is also an allegation that appellant - wife attempted to commit suicide due to leakage of LPG gas. They are also residing separately from 2008 onwards. Despite Ex. B-1 undertaking given by Respondent – Husband, there is no change in their attitude and they remained staying separately. 21. It is also apt to note that neither appellant - wife nor Respondent -Husband filed an application seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Respondent – Husband did not file any application seeking custody of his child or visitation Rights. 22. It is also not in dispute that appellant – wife and her daughter filed an application under Section 125 CrPC. vide M.C No. 61 of 2014 seeking maintenance. Learned Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the Wife and 5,000/- per month to the daughter. Perusal of record would reveal that Respondent - Husband has filed Crl. R.C No. 1874 of 2016 challenging the said order and as per the orders granted by this Court, the husband has deposited an amount of One Lakh on 06.11.2016. Thereafter, he failed to pay the said amount. Thus, there is an allegation against Respondent – Husband that he is not paying the said maintenance amount. 23. It is also apt to note that during pendency of the present appeal, Appellant – Wife has filed I.A.No. 1 of 2025 seeking susbsitituion of service on the respondent – husband. Vide order dated, 17.02.2025, this Court permitted the appellant to publish notice in Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily Newspaper and the Times of India, English Daily Newspaper. Accordingly, she has published the said notices and filed copies of the same. 24. Vide order dated, 17.02.2025, this Court permitted the appellant to publish notice in Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily Newspaper and the Times of India, English Daily Newspaper. Accordingly, she has published the said notices and filed copies of the same. 24. She has also filed I.A.No. 5 of 2025 stating that Respondent is working as an Industrial Manager at Smartcoat India Private Limited, located in Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. Therefore, this Court granted permission to the appellant to serve notice on the Respondent at the said address. According to her, notice sent to the Respondent at the said address is returned unserved with an endorsement “Addressee Left. Returned to Sender”. Accordingly the said application was disposed of. 25. She has also filed I.A.No. 4 of 2025 seeking a direction to Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10,26,000/- towards arrears of maintenance awarded in the aforesaid M.C. Vide order dated 04.11.2025, this court dismissed the said application holding that she has to file an application under section 125(3) of CrPC and thus, there is a delay of 11 years. 26. She has also filed I.A.No. 3 of 2025 in the present appeal seeking a direction to Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards expenses of her daughter’s marriage. Likewise, she has filed I.A.No. 2 of 2025 seeking a direction to Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance of her daughter. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025 are dismissed. 27. As discussed supra the Respondent filed the aforesaid O.P against appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 28. The appellant relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Kollam Chndrasekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha , (2014) 1 SCC 225 wherein it was held that marriage is a sacred institution and that dissolution should not be granted casually, when the husband abandoned the wife during her illness or without affording a chance for reconciliation. She also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 to argue that vague or generalized allegations without specific evidence cannot constitute cruelty. To seek permanent alimony, she also relied on the judgments of the High Court including Vijayashree v. Dr. She also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 to argue that vague or generalized allegations without specific evidence cannot constitute cruelty. To seek permanent alimony, she also relied on the judgments of the High Court including Vijayashree v. Dr. Nishant Arvind Kale , 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 29 , Umarani v. D. Vivekannandan , 2000 SCC OnLine Mad 50 and Surajmal Ramachandra Khati v. Rukmani , 1999 SCC OnLine MP 87 to submit that under Section 25 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , maintenance or alimony may be granted even on an oral request or without a separate written application, considering the object of the Act. 29. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound; therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 . 30. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of cruelty or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two is relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration as observed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita , AIR 2023 SC 2144 . 31. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. 31. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , (2006) 4 SCC 558 . 32. The appellant and the respondent were at loggerheads right from the inception of their marriage. The marriage never took off. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage for the last twelve years, the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The marriage is virtually shattered and has become a dead wood. The allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other establish that there is no further chance of a rapprochement. The appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances of cruelty meted out on him by the respondent as held by the Apex Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna , MANU/KE/1505/2021. 33. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce as held by the Apex Court in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy , (2005) 7 SCC 353 . 34. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to cruelty or not. 35. In Naveen Kohli, (supra) the Apex Court held as follows: “72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. 35. In Naveen Kohli, (supra) the Apex Court held as follows: “72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.” 73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. 74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. 75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. 76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.” 36. As discussed above, the parties are staying separately from 2008 onwards i.e., since last 17 years. The daughter is 19 years now. It is not in dispute that the appellant – wife brought up her daughter. As discussed above, the parties are staying separately from 2008 onwards i.e., since last 17 years. The daughter is 19 years now. It is not in dispute that the appellant – wife brought up her daughter. The respondent - husband never sought for custody of his daughter or the visitation rights. 37. Despite granting ample opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the husband. 38. It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court can dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, it can be considered as an aspect along with other aspects while deciding the present Appeal. In the present case, the parties are staying separately since last 17 years. There is no possibility of their re-union. During the period of said separation only, the respondent- husband filed the aforesaid FCOP. On consideration of the said evidence, the Family Court allowed the said FCOP filed by the respondent – husband vide impugned order dated 16.06.2014 dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent dated 25.02.2007 39. As discussed supra, appellant brought up her daughter till date and she is 19 years at present. According to appellant – Wife, Respondent is not paying maintenance amount awarded by the Magistrate except deposit of the aforesaid amount of One Lakh in compliance with order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Crl.R.C. It is also specific contention of the appellant – Wife that Respondent is presently working as Institutional Manager at Smartcoat India Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. He was aged about 35 years as on the date of filing of F.C.O.P. No.262 of 2010, and he is 50 years old now. As on the date of filing of OP, she was 30 years and now she is 45 years old. Admittedly, the child is residing with the wife and she alone has brought her up and she is aged 19 years at present. The wife has to perform the marriage of their daughter. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant - wife and her daughter are entitled for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and maintenance of her child and the respondent - husband is liable to pay the same. 40. The wife has to perform the marriage of their daughter. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant - wife and her daughter are entitled for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and maintenance of her child and the respondent - husband is liable to pay the same. 40. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 16.06.2014 in FCOP No.262 of 2010 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is confirmed, on the condition that Respondent – Husband paying an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony to the wife and maintenance of their daughter. He shall pay the said amount within 3 months from today. The said amount is towards full and final settlement of all the claims of the appellant - wife and her daughter including permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate in M.C. No. 61 of 2014 and Cr.R.C No. 1874 of 2011. They shall not make any further claim in any form against Respondent – Husband. It is also made clear that if Respondent – Husband failed to pay the said amount within the aforesaid period of three (3) months from today, liberty is granted to appellant - wife and her daughter to take steps against her husband in accordance with law. 41. In view of granting permanent alimony which includes the maintenance to the daughter of the appellant, both the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are dismissed. 42. With the aforesaid directions, the Family Court Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.