JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Sri Krishna Maragani, learned counsel, representing Sri P.V. Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the appellant/wife in FCA No.411 of 2012 and respondent in FCA No.365 of 2012, Sri S. Raghuram, learned counsel representing Smt. K.Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent in FCA No.411 of 2012 and appellant in FCA No.365 of 2012. (For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife and the husband’) 2. Sri S.Raghuram, learned counsel appearing for the husband, would submit that the husband is not in touch with him and he has no instructions from the husband. 3. Husband has filed an application vide O.P.No.528 of 2008 under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1955’) against the wife before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Vide impugned order, dated 21.11.2012, learned Judge, Family Court granted judicial separation for a period of one year, instead of decree of divorce. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, both the wife and the husband preferred the present appeals. 5. Husband has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.528 of 2008 against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty contending as follows:- i. Their marriage was performed on 02.06.1991 at Yerraguntla Village, Kadapa District, as per the Hindu rites and customs. ii. It is an arranged marriage. iii. They were blessed with two male children i.e. Prashanth Sagar Reddy born on 09.11.1992 and Nishanth Sagar Reddy born on 26.01.1996 respectively out of their lawful wedlock. iv. At the time of marriage, husband was working at Madras as he was engineering graduate. v. She joined him at Madras where they lived upto 17.05.1995. vi. Thereafter, he was transferred to Hyderabad and then to Kottayam, Kerala. vii. During their stay at Kottayam, there were disputes between them. The wife, who acquainted to city lifestyle at Hyderabad, did not like to live with the husband at Kottayam. During his stay at Kottayam, he faced hardship with patience and tolerance. viii. Thereafter, he was transferred to Hyderabad on 20.02.2020 and lived at Alakapuri, Hyderabad, in a premises let out by his employer, which was subsequently purchased by him out of his savings and by obtaining loan. ix. During his stay at Kottayam, he faced hardship with patience and tolerance. viii. Thereafter, he was transferred to Hyderabad on 20.02.2020 and lived at Alakapuri, Hyderabad, in a premises let out by his employer, which was subsequently purchased by him out of his savings and by obtaining loan. ix. In the year 1997, there was change in her behavior for which husband requested wife to cooperate with him by taking medical advice and treatment if necessary. x. In the year 1997, he helped to the wife of his close friend who was away from home, and gave her medicine as she was suffering from high fever. On coming to know the same, the wife attributed illicit relation to him with his friend’s wife. xi. When his friend wanted to lodge a complaint against his wife with police, she tendered apology to his friend. xii. He, being a Civil Engineer, is required to be present at sites till late nights, for which she used to ask him that with which woman he slept on that particular day. He used to explain her that his work demands his presence at the site and he cannot abandon his work in the middle. But she did not heed his words and continued to harass him. xiii. On the pretext of husband coming late to the house, she did not serve food to him. xiv. Once, while he was cooking for himself and the children in the morning hours, she suddenly beat him with a flower vase and caused him bleeding injury on his head. He was taken to Susheela Hospital, at Ramakrishnapuram by his elder son and was in the hospital for three days. During that period, she did not see him nor enquire about him. xv. She used to spend money for luxuries and meaningless purposes. She is fancy of doing a job as an anchor in TV channels and acting in films. She used to spend lot of money for taking photographs of herself in various poses to submit to TV Channels and film producers. She used to roam around the producers and brokers, who lure gullible women with roles in films and TV. xvi. She used to visit police stations, take autographs of Constables and Home Guards in the police stations. xvii. She used to roam around the producers and brokers, who lure gullible women with roles in films and TV. xvi. She used to visit police stations, take autographs of Constables and Home Guards in the police stations. xvii. She used to enquire about her husband with his co-employees at office as to where he was going everyday and with which woman he was spending. xviii. On 16.05.2005, she lodged a complaint against the husband with the Police, L.B.Nagar, who registered a case in Cr.No.257 of 2005, for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. xix. She did not allow the husband to enter into the house. She used to threat him saying that she will implicate him in civil cases. Thus, she subjected him to cruelty. 6. With the above contentions, the Husband sought to grant decree of divorce. 7. Wife filed counter denying the said allegations. According to her, she never subjected the husband to cruelty as alleged by him. However, she has alleged that he was having illegal contact with another lady working as a Stenographer in LIC. She has tolerated all this with great patience keeping the welfare of her children in mind. Her husband is very cruel and harassed her for more money and used to come to house late during nights. Her husband necked her out, having illegal contacts with other woman. Even then, he has filed the aforesaid petition with all false and baseless allegations. 8. To prove the said cruelty, the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and Sri S. Hanumantha Reddy, his co-employee as P.W.2. He has marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. 9. To disprove the cruelty, the wife examined herself as R.W.1 and she did not exhibit any documents. 10. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, vide impugned order dated 21.11.2012, the Family Court, instead of granting decree of divorce, granted judicial separation for a period of one year. 11. Assailing the said orders, the husband preferred the appeal vide FCA No.365 of 2005 and wife preferred an appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012. 12. It is relevant to note that vide order dated 04.01.2013 in FCA No.411 of 2012, this Court granted interim suspension as prayed for. The Husband filed vacate application to vacate the said order. The said vacate application is pending. 13. 12. It is relevant to note that vide order dated 04.01.2013 in FCA No.411 of 2012, this Court granted interim suspension as prayed for. The Husband filed vacate application to vacate the said order. The said vacate application is pending. 13. Thereafter, when FCA No.411 of 2012 was listed on 15.04.2013, there was no representation on behalf of the wife, this Court posted the said appeal to 22.04.2013 for judgment, thereafter to 03.06.2013 on which date, there was no representation on behalf of the wife. Therefore, vide order dated 03.06.2013, this Court directed to list the appeal under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on 04.06.2013. On 04.06.2013, both the said appeals were listed for hearing. Thereafter, the matters were listed on 13.02.2014, both the parties and their children appeared before this Court and this Court made efforts to bring about conciliation, but the same were not fruitful. Therefore, this Court listed the appeals for hearing on merits. 14. When the matters were listed on 04.02.2023, there was no representation on both sides. Thereafter, matter was listed on 11.01.2023 on which date, learned counsel appearing for the wife sought time. The matters were listed for hearing on 08.02.2023 on which date, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the learned counsel for the husband is no more. Therefore, this Court directed the registry to send notice to the husband through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and file proof. Accordingly, notice was sent to the husband and it was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘Address wrong’. 15. It is also apt to note that when the matters were listed on 30.10.2025, Sri S.Raghuram, learned counsel representing Ms. K.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for husband informed this Court that as the husband is not in touch with him, he has no instructions. 16. It is also apt to note that the aforesaid appeals were posted on 04.06.2013 for hearing, on which date, there was no representation on behalf of the wife. Therefore, vide order dated 04.06.2013, this Court dismissed the appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012 preferred by the wife. On the same day, this Court allowed the appeal vide FCA No.365 of 2012 filed by the Husband and modified the order passed by the learned Family Court to one, the dissolution of the marriage instead of judicial separation. 17. Therefore, vide order dated 04.06.2013, this Court dismissed the appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012 preferred by the wife. On the same day, this Court allowed the appeal vide FCA No.365 of 2012 filed by the Husband and modified the order passed by the learned Family Court to one, the dissolution of the marriage instead of judicial separation. 17. Thereafter, the Wife filed I.A.No.2 of 2013 in FCA No.411 of 2012 seeking to condone delay of 80 days in filing the application to restore the said appeal to its original position. She has also filed I.A.No.3 of 2013 for restoration of the said appeal. 18. The said I.A.Nos.2 of 2013 (FCAMP No.661 of 2013) in FCA No.411 of 2012 was listed for hearing before this court on 04.12.2013 on which date, this Court observed that the appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012 filed by the wife was dismissed for default on 04.06.2013. An application is filed to set aside the said order. Since there is delay of 80 days in filing that application, the said application was filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the Husband that against the order passed in O.P.No.528 of 2008, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, FCA No.365 of 2012 filed by the husband was also arisen, the same was allowed on 04.06.2013 itself. As long as that order stands, no useful purpose would be served either in condoning the delay or restoring the appeal. However, on the request made by learned counsel for the Wife, the said matter was adjourned to 16.12.2013. Thereafter, the same was adjourned from time to time. 19. It is also apt to note that the wife has filed I.A.No.1 of 2014 (FCAMP No.19 of 2014) in FCA No.365 of 2012 to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the restoration petition in FCA No.365 of 2012 and to set aside the order dated 04.06.2013 in FCA No.365 of 2012. 19. It is also apt to note that the wife has filed I.A.No.1 of 2014 (FCAMP No.19 of 2014) in FCA No.365 of 2012 to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the restoration petition in FCA No.365 of 2012 and to set aside the order dated 04.06.2013 in FCA No.365 of 2012. Considering the fact that FCA No.365 of 2012 was allowed by this Court on 04.06.2013 without hearing the learned counsel for the wife, the reasons mentioned by the Wife that though she has engaged counsel, he has not appeared and therefore, for the mistake committed by her counsel, she cannot be penalized and also considering the fact that the disputes between the parties are matrimonial disputes, vide order dated 16.10.2025, this Court allowed the aforesaid applications and condoned delay in filing the aforesaid applications in FCA No.411 of 2012 and FCA No.411 of 2012 was restored to its original position by setting aside the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by this Court in FCA No.365 of 2012. 20. As discussed supra, the marriage of the parties was performed on 02.06.1991 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two male children on 09.11.1992 and 26.01.1996. At present, they are 33 and 28 years. There is no dispute that the husband filed the aforesaid OP contending that his wife was harassing him by suspecting his character. She has implicated him in a criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. On completion of the Investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against him and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.140 of 2009. However, the same was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 30.06.2011 i.e. Ex.P.7. He has also filed criminal petition vide Crl.P.No.8465 of 2009 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.No.140 of 2009. This Court passed an order dated 28.07.2010 i.e. Ex.P.6. 21. It is also not in dispute that the wife has filed a private complaint vide C.C.105 of 2008 i.e. Ex.P.9. Ex.P.10 is the copy of complaint in C.C.No.1124 of 2007. It is also not in dispute that the husband has alleged that wife offered plot No.57 situated at Meerpet village belongs to him to one Mr. Balbir singh Dhukia and received an advance consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs without his knowledge. Ex.P.10 is the copy of complaint in C.C.No.1124 of 2007. It is also not in dispute that the husband has alleged that wife offered plot No.57 situated at Meerpet village belongs to him to one Mr. Balbir singh Dhukia and received an advance consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs without his knowledge. He has filed a suit vide O.S.No.1222 of 2007 against his wife and the said Mr. Balbir Singh Dhukia for injunction. The same was decreed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District vide Ex.P.8 judgment and decree in O.S.No.1222 of 2007. The said Mr. Balbir Singh Dhukia also filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the wife and the husband for the offence under Section 420 of IPC alleging that the cheque issued by the wife was dishonoured. 22. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the husband used to work as Engineer in LIC of India. He was transferred from one place to other as per the policy of the said company. To prove that the wife abused him in filthy language, he examined his co-employee as P.W.2. It is also not in dispute that the wife lodged a complaint before A.P. Mahila Samakya, A.P. Mahila Commission, A.P. State Human Rights Commission and also Women Protection Cell. She has admitted the said facts, during cross-examination. 23. On consideration of the said facts only, vide impugned order, dated 21.11.2012 in O.P.No.528 of 2008, learned Family Court granted judicial separation for a period of one year instead of decree of divorce. The same was stayed by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2013 in FCA No.411 of 2012. 24. As discussed supra, both the wife and husband along with their children appeared before this Court and the efforts made by this Court for conciliation and to settle the disputes were not fruitful. The said fact was recorded by this Court on 13.02.2014. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 04.06.2013, this Court dismissed the appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012 filed by the wife for the absence of her counsel. It is also her specific contention that she has engaged counsel but he did not appear before this Court and therefore, for his mistake, she cannot be penalized. 25. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 04.06.2013, this Court dismissed the appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012 filed by the wife for the absence of her counsel. It is also her specific contention that she has engaged counsel but he did not appear before this Court and therefore, for his mistake, she cannot be penalized. 25. Considering the said facts, this Court allowed the condone delay application and also restoration application filed by the wife and restored the appeal vide FCA No.411 of 2012 to its original position. 26. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 04.06.2013 in FCA No.365 of 2012 is without hearing the Wife. 27. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court modified the impugned order, dissolved the marriage of the parties dated 02.06.1991 considering that the wife lodged several complaints against the husband and she has suspected his character. 28. As discussed supra, husband is 56 years and the wife is 52 years at present. Their children are aged 33 and 28 years respectively. The said aspects were not considered by this Court. It is not in dispute that the husband is working as Engineer in LIC of India. 29. It is also not in dispute that the spouse who alleges cruelty against the other spouse has to plead and prove the said cruelty by producing relevant evidence both oral and documentary. In the present case, the husband has filed the aforesaid OP against his wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. In fact, he has to prove the said cruel acts. However, he has examined his colleague as P.W.2 who deposed that when the husband was working as Engineer in LIC of India, when he was in the supervision of work at site, his wife used to call him and enquire about him with suspicion. She also came to the office in the absence of the husband in May, 2005. 30. It is also not in dispute that the wife offered the aforesaid place/plot belongs to the Husband to Mr. Balbir Singh Dhukia, on receiving advance consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs from him without knowledge of her husband. Therefore, the husband has filed a suit in O.S.No.1222 of 2007 against his wife and the said Balbir Singh Dhukia, for injunction, the same was decreed vide Ex.P.8. Balbir Singh Dhukia, on receiving advance consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs from him without knowledge of her husband. Therefore, the husband has filed a suit in O.S.No.1222 of 2007 against his wife and the said Balbir Singh Dhukia, for injunction, the same was decreed vide Ex.P.8. It is also not in dispute that the wife has issued a cheque in favour of the said Balbir Singh, the same was dishooured on presentation. Therefore, the said Balbir Singh has filed a complaint against the wife and the husband under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 31. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, the wife has lodged a complaint with several authorities against the Husband. However, on consideration of the submissions made by the wife that she has right to live with the husband, learned Family Court, instead of granting decree of divorce, granted judicial separation for one year hoping that the parties may reconcile and lead marital life happily keeping the welfare of their children in mind. However, this Court granted interim suspension of the said order. 32. As discussed supra, the husband is 56 years for the present and the wife is 52 years. Their children are 33 and 28 years. 33. The husband whereabouts are not known. He is not in touch with his counsel. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to consider as to whether the husband is in service or retired. Learned counsel for the wife is also not in a position to inform this Court about the said fact. According to the learned Counsel for the wife, children are with the wife. The said aspects were not considered by this Court in the order dated 04.06.2013 which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025. 34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, dissolving the marriage of the parties will not serve any purpose at this age. Therefore, the appeal vide FCA Nos.411 of 2012 filed by the wife and the appeal vide FCA No.365 of 2012 filed by the husband to set aside the order dated 21.11.2012 in O.P.No.528 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are dismissed. Therefore, the appeal vide FCA Nos.411 of 2012 filed by the wife and the appeal vide FCA No.365 of 2012 filed by the husband to set aside the order dated 21.11.2012 in O.P.No.528 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are dismissed. The order dated 21.11.2012 in O.P.No.528 of 2008 passed by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is set aside and O.P.No.528 of 2008 is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.