JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Ms. Sowjanya, learned counsel, representing Mrs. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the husband and Sri Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel representing Mrs. S.Anuradha Naidu, learned counsel for the wife, in both the appeals. 2. FCA No.36 of 2015 is filed by the husband aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2014 passed in FCOP No.446 of 2013 by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, whereas, FCA No.393 of 2018 is filed by the wife against the order dated 30.04.2018 passed in FCOP No.409 of 2015 by the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 3. The husband filed the aforesaid petition vide FCOP No.446 of 2013 under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion with the following averments:- i. The marriage of the parties was performed on 20.02.2003 at Secunderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. ii. It is an arranged marriage. iii. They were blessed with a female child by name Vaishnavi born on 15.05.2004 out of their lawful wedlock. iv. As on the date of marriage, the wife started her career as Agricultural Extension Officer (Gazetted Officer) in Agriculture Department at Narmetta Village, Jangaon Mandal, Warangal District and he was working as a Clerk in Railway Department at Secunderabad. v. After the marriage, they lived together in Railway Quarters, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad as he was allotted a quarter. vi. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. vii. The wife was arrogant and she feels superior than him. She used to comment him and his family members very badly which are unbearable. viii. All the efforts to change her attitude have become futile. ix. During her pregnancy, she used to react wildly against him and there was no proper intimation about her admission in the hospital for the purpose of delivery. On coming to know about her admission in the hospital, he went to the hospital at Kukatpally, where Mr. K. Umakanth, brother of his wife, made derogatory comments against him and created nuisance in the hospital, thereby he was constrained to leave the place. x. His wife and her family members did not invite him for naming ceremony of the child and to Annaprasana ceremony. xi. K. Umakanth, brother of his wife, made derogatory comments against him and created nuisance in the hospital, thereby he was constrained to leave the place. x. His wife and her family members did not invite him for naming ceremony of the child and to Annaprasana ceremony. xi. During the period of their separation, her father died in the month of November, 2008 and he went to see dead body of his father – in –law but she did not talk to him. He was not even intimated about the death ceremony. All these acts of the wife shows that she is not interested to continue marital life. xii. On 29.12.2008, his mother died and he contacted her as well as conveyed through message. His wife, her brother and sister-in- law came to his house and despite his request to stay, his wife did not stay with him and made derogatory comments against him. xiii. Despite several efforts made by him, she did not come back to the matrimonial home. 4. With the aforesaid contentions, he sought to grant decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage with his wife. 5. The wife filed a petition vide FCOP No.409 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against husband contending as follows:- i. He was in the habit of taking away her entire salary and used to give Rs.50/- daily for her travelling expenses to go to the work place. ii. He forced her to get abortion as he had responsibility towards his family. Even during pregnancy, she attended duty besides household work. iii. Seemantham function was performed. With the permission of her husband and his family only, her parents admitted her in the hospital for delivery. Despite informing the same, he came late to hospital and left without seeing her. iv. Despite intimation, he did not come to see the new born child as it is female child. v. Despite intimation, even they did not attend cradle ceremony, Annaprasana and first birth day function of the child. vi. She anxiously waited for him with a fond hope that he would come and take her back along with the child but he demanded Rs.10 Lakhs to take her back along with the child. vii. Despite her efforts, he did not take her back to the matrimonial home. vi. She anxiously waited for him with a fond hope that he would come and take her back along with the child but he demanded Rs.10 Lakhs to take her back along with the child. vii. Despite her efforts, he did not take her back to the matrimonial home. With great difficulty, she is managing to grow up the child as single parent. 6. In both the petitions, both the parties have filed counters with the aforesaid allegations denying the allegations made against each other. 7. In FCOP No.446 of 2013, to prove the said cruelty and desertion, the husband examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is wedding card, Ex.A.2 is marriage photograph, Ex.A.3 is Photostat copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.A.4 is list of messages received by him in his mobile, Ex.A.5 is Photostat copy of allotment order No.31 of 2005, Ex.A.6 is Photostat copy of FIR No.26 of 2014 of Women Police Station, Begumpet and Ex.A.7 is Photostat copy of Sakshi newspaper. 8. To disprove the same, the wife examined herself as R.W.1 and her sister-in-law as R.W.2 and no document was marked. 9. In support of her claim in FCOP No.409 of 2015 filed by her against husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights, she examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is marriage photograph, Ex.A.2 is wedding card and Ex.A.3 is copy of rental agreement. To disprove the claim of the Wife, the husband examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.5. Ex.B.1 is certified copy of complaint filed before the XV ACMM, Nampally, Ex.B.2 is certified copy of statement, Ex.B.3 is SCR No.150/TR/DAR/ 02/2014/3354, Ex.B.4 is SCR No.E/150/TR/DAR/ 02/2014 and Ex.B.5 is Yashoda Hospital Discharge summary of MLC No.13529. 10. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Judge, Family Court dismissed both the petitions vide FCOP No.446 of 2013 filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage with the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and FCOP No.409 of 2015 filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights, vide the aforesaid impugned orders. 11. Assailing the aforesaid orders, both the parties preferred the present appeals as stated above. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the husband and the wife extensively. 13. 11. Assailing the aforesaid orders, both the parties preferred the present appeals as stated above. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the husband and the wife extensively. 13. In support of his contentions to prove cruelty and desertion, learned counsel for the husband placed reliance on the judgments in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli , (2006) 4 SCC 558 , Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 , Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal , (2012) 7 SCC 288 , K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa , (2013) 5 SCC 226 , K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita , (2014) 16 SCC 34 , Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj , (2020) 3 SCC 786 , Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani , (2020) 18 SCC 247 , Sai Prasad Moorthygari vs. Ram Kumari , 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3139 and also the judgment of this Court in Kodali Krishna Chaitanya vs. Chava (Kodali) Nishi, 2023 AIR 67 and also judgment in FCA Nos.429 of 2018 and 321 of 2009. 14. Perused the record. It is not in dispute that the parties herein are legally wedded couple and they are blessed with a female child. They are making allegations against each other. The husband alleges that his wife subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. She alleges that he neglected her and her daughter and he never treated them with care and affection. 15. In view of the above facts of the case, it is apt to discuss the evidence on record. During the cross-examination, the husband categorically admitted that it is an arranged marriage. After enquiry with regard to her qualifications, employment and other particulars, he has agreed for the said marriage. At the time of his marriage, his wife was working in Janagoan. He used to pick up and drop her at railway station. His wife started her career as a Gazetted Officer. 16. It is also apt to note that there is a serious allegation against husband that he used to suspect the character of his wife. There is also a serious allegation against him that he forced his wife to go for abortion on the premise that he has commitment to look after his unmarried sister and ailing mother. 16. It is also apt to note that there is a serious allegation against husband that he used to suspect the character of his wife. There is also a serious allegation against him that he forced his wife to go for abortion on the premise that he has commitment to look after his unmarried sister and ailing mother. By the time he reached the hospital, his wife was in the operation theatre, and consent form was signed by her family members as he reached late at 3.00 P.M., but not at 11.00 A.M as suggested. He was informed about necessity of cesarean operation by 1.00 P.M. but not at 11.00 A.M. He further admitted that thereafter, he has not gone to see his wife and child. He admitted that he was informed about the birth of his daughter through her brother. However, admission of the girl in ICU was not informed to him. He further admitted that he did not go to his wife’s house to see her and the daughter nor enquired about their health. He saw his daughter for the first time when she was brought by his wife to the Court on the first date of hearing. He has not taken the child though he was introduced by his wife as father. 17. He further admitted that neither he nor his parents attended Annaprasana and the first birthday celebration of his daughter as they have not informed him. He has not supported his daughter emotionally and financially. He asked his wife to join him with daughter once in phone. None on his behalf went to bring his wife and daughter back nor efforts were made by his family members. After his visit to the hospital in connection with her delivery, his next step is only filing this FCOP after attending his father in law’s funeral. He has further admitted that his wife and her family members visited their house on knowing the death of his mother. However, his daughter was not brought. He has further admitted that the details of Ex.A.4 – list of messages received by him to his mobile, were not mentioned in his pleadings, chief - examination and Exs.A.4 to A.7 were not filed with the petition. He has not informed anybody about Ex.A.4. 18. He has further admitted that he has informed about his wife’s abusive language to her brother and father. He has not informed anybody about Ex.A.4. 18. He has further admitted that he has informed about his wife’s abusive language to her brother and father. The said fact was not mentioned in the petition filed by him nor in his evidence. His wife has not approached any forum till receipt of notice in the aforesaid case and conciliation. He has further admitted that his gross salary is of Rs.46,720/- per month. He took personal loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) after filing the said OP, except that, he has no other responsibilities. He has purchased a car in the year 2012 and paying EMIs. He has further admitted that his wife left him on 08.04.2004 but his remembrance, it may be on 11.04.2004 also. 19. On the other hand, during cross-examination, wife admitted that she and her husband are living separately for the last 9 years. Her daughter was aged about 10 years then. They resided in railway quarters. Her husband shifted to A.9 quarter in 2007. She made phone calls to her husband. She did not go to her husband’s quarter for requesting him for reunion. Her salary is Rs.46,000/- per month then. From February, 2002 to 2007, she worked in Janagoan. Her child was born after completion of 9 months pregnancy. She worked as Agricultural Extension Officer. She did not have fixed office hours. She used to commute from Hyderabad to Janagoan, from 7.00 A.M., to 8.00 P.M. or so. She never used to make SMS to her husband. She did not mention about her land line phone number as she did not remember. She did not talk to her husband when she was at home. Her mobile number is 934701119 since 2006. Ex.A.4 shows that it was used by Shailaja. 20. She has further admitted that her husband took her to Dr. Sudharani but not her mother-in-law. Her daughter was in hospital for 8 days in ICU. She did not call her husband on 14.05.2004 but parents called her husband. She could not observe whether her husband attended during her cesarean operation. She did not know what happened in the hospital. First birthday and naming ceremony of her daughter was celebrated. They performed Annaprasana. Birthday function of her daughter was performed on 14.05.2005. She never brought the incidents of their married life to the police upto 2014. She could not observe whether her husband attended during her cesarean operation. She did not know what happened in the hospital. First birthday and naming ceremony of her daughter was celebrated. They performed Annaprasana. Birthday function of her daughter was performed on 14.05.2005. She never brought the incidents of their married life to the police upto 2014. She has further admitted that she has made a complaint against her husband under Section 498-A of IPC. There were no disputes outside. She went for delivery on 11.04.2004. She has not performed any seemantham as there is no custom. 21. R.W.2, her sister-in-law deposed that there are disputes between the husband and wife. She has also deposed that the husband demanded an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs when the wife was blessed with a female child. They have made lot of efforts to join the parties together but the same went in vain due to adamant attitude of the husband. However, during the cross-examination, she has admitted that the details of the problems of both parties were not mentioned in her chief-examination affidavit. They have informed the husband that his presence in the hospital is required to sign in the necessary documents in the hospital. They have informed him about admission of the wife in the hospital but not the contra as suggested. She has not enquired as to where the husband when received her phone call on 15.05.2004. Her father-in-law and her husband made efforts for re- union of the parties. However, she did not remember the dates of mediation though it was in 2005. The husband called her over phone though her phone number was not furnished specifically. The husband never used to respond to their calls properly. She mentioned in her chief examination that her husband requested him to join but he refused. She knows the wife filing a case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC against her the husband after divorce case. 22. The aforesaid stated facts would reveal that the marriage of the parties was performed on 20.02.2003. It is an arranged marriage. Both of them are Employees. At the time of marriage, He was working as a railway employee and she was working as Agricultural Extension Officer (Gazetted Officer) in Agriculture Department. After enquiry with regard to her additional qualifications etc, only, they got marriage. They were blessed with a female child on 15.05.2004. It is an arranged marriage. Both of them are Employees. At the time of marriage, He was working as a railway employee and she was working as Agricultural Extension Officer (Gazetted Officer) in Agriculture Department. After enquiry with regard to her additional qualifications etc, only, they got marriage. They were blessed with a female child on 15.05.2004. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. 23. Perusal of record would also reveal that wife was a Gazetted Officer and the husband was Head Clerk in Railway Department at the time of their marriage. The same created differences between the husband and wife. The same are due to egos. 24. There is also no dispute that the wife has lodged a complaint with the Begumpet Police Station who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.26 of 2014 for the offence under Section 498- A of IPC against the husband which is Ex.A.6. It is also not in dispute that the husband was remanded in the said case for 7 days. The Husband has specifically alleged that his wife informed railway authorities about the said remand and requested them to take action against him. On the said information, railway authorities placed him under suspension for a period of 12 days. 25. He has specifically deposed the said facts in his affidavit filed in lieu of the chief examination. Even then, nothing was elicited from him during cross-examination. There are also disputes between the husband and wife with regard to delivery of the girl child, and signing on consent form for conducting cesarean operation on the wife. According to the husband, on receipt of information, he went to hospital and according to the wife despite information, he did not go to hospital. According to the husband, his wife and her parents did not inform him and his parents with regard to Annaprasana, cradle ceremony, naming ceremony and first birthday of his daughter. According to wife, despite information neither husband, nor his parents attended. However, there is no dispute that the wife and her family members visited the house of her husband on coming to know about his mother’s death but they did not take her daughter there. The said facts are not in dispute. 26. It is also not in dispute that the news item was published in Ex. A.7 - Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper regarding the arrest/remand of the husband. The said facts are not in dispute. 26. It is also not in dispute that the news item was published in Ex. A.7 - Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper regarding the arrest/remand of the husband. According to the husband, his wife got published the same in the newspaper as advertisement. In fact, it is not advertisement, it is only a news article. 27. According to the husband, respondent has sent Ex.P.4 SMSs to his mobile which contains filthy language. However, wife denies the same. The husband in his chief - examination specifically stated that wife used to send SMSs through her mobile Nos.9347100093 and 9393493944 with the same tone and language. However, wife denied the said fact. But she has admitted her phone number. 28. Though there is reference to intervention of Mr. K. Umakanth, brother of his wife, that said Mr. K.Umakanth made derogatory comments against him and created nuisance in the hospital, thereby he was constrained to leave the place, neither of them examined the said K. Umakanth to prove the same. There is serious allegation against the husband that due to inferiority complex, he used to harass the wife. According to the husband, wife was having superiority complex on the ground that she was a Gazetted Officer and husband was Head Clerk. There are disputes with regard to the same between the husband and the wife. There are also serious allegations against the husband that he used to suspect her character and demanded her to go for abortion. 29. It is also apt to note that the wife has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the same was referred to Women Police Station, Begumpet, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.26 of 2014 (Ex.P.6) against the husband for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the same was ended in acquittal. In the said case, she has made serious allegations against the husband. He was remanded for seven (7) days and he was placed under suspicion for 12 days. The said news was published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper (Ex.A.7). Thus, there is strained relation between the parties. 30. It is also apt to note that they were residing separately for the past 21 years i.e. from April, 2004 onwards. He was remanded for seven (7) days and he was placed under suspicion for 12 days. The said news was published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper (Ex.A.7). Thus, there is strained relation between the parties. 30. It is also apt to note that they were residing separately for the past 21 years i.e. from April, 2004 onwards. The said fact was admitted by the wife, during the cross-examination. 31. Their daughter is 21 years at present. It is also apt to note that the wife brought up her child. It is also not in dispute that the husband did not file any application/take steps seeking custody of his daughter or for visitation rights. He has admitted the said fact during the cross-examination. It is also not in dispute that wife did not file any application against husband seeking maintenance to her daughter. 32. The said facts would reveal that there is strained relation between the parties. As on the date of filing of the FCOP No.446 of 2013, husband was 48 years and at present, he is 60 years. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that he retired from service. Likewise, at the time of filing of the aforesaid FCOP No.409 of 2015, wife was 40 years and now she is 55 years. She is in service. She has been working as Assistant Director in Agriculture Department. Thus, there are serious disputes against each other. There is strained relation. There is no possibility of re-union of the parties since they are residing separately for the last 21 years. 33. It is not in dispute that neither the learned Judge, Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties on the ground of irretrievable break down of the marriage. However, the said aspect can certainly be considered by the learned Judge, Family Court and this Court while deciding the petitions seeking dissolution of marriage along with other aspects. 34. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 observed that 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. 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. 35. In Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita , 2023 AIR SC 2144 , the Apex Court observed that 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. 36. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , (2006) 4 SCC 558 , the Apex Court held that 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. 37. 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 as to whether it amounts to cruelty or not. 38. The aforesaid discussion would also reveal that the wife subjected the husband to mental cruelty. He was remanded for seven days in Cr.No.26 of 2014. In fact, she has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against her husband for the aforesaid offences. The same was referred to Women Police Station, Begumpet for registering said crime. The same was published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper vide Ex.A.7. He was placed under suspicion for 12 days. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it amounts to mental cruelty. 39. The same was referred to Women Police Station, Begumpet for registering said crime. The same was published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper vide Ex.A.7. He was placed under suspicion for 12 days. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it amounts to mental cruelty. 39. Thus, the husband proved cruelty by producing the aforesaid evidence. Wife did not produce any evidence in contra to rebut the same. Even according to the wife, they are living separately from April, 2004 onwards. She has admitted the said fact during the cross-examination. Thus, the above facts are clearly establishing that the wife deserted the husband. But the said aspects were not considered by the learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 in FCOP No.446 of 2013. Without considering the said aspects, learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the said OP holding that in a matrimonial dispute, a wrongdoer cannot be allowed to take advantage of his wrong. The said finding of the learned Judge, Family Court is erroneous and contrary to the record. Therefore, the order dated 03.12.2024 in FCOP No.446 of 2013 of the learned Judge, Family Court is liable to be set aside and we are inclined to allow the said FCOP. 40. Vide order dated 30.04.2018, learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the OP No.409 of 2015 filed by wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is a reasoned order. The said order does not require interference of this Court. 41. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold as follows:- i. FCA No.393 of 2018 filed by the wife is dismissed confirming the order dated 30.04.2018 in O.P.No.409 of 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. ii. F.C.A.No.36 of 2015 filed by the husband is allowed . The impugned order dated 03.12.2024 in FCOP No.446 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, is set aside. However, the said FCOP No.446 of 2013 filed by husband against his wife is allowed granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 20.02.2003 of the parties on the condition of the husband paying an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the daughter towards her maintenance within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, his daughter is at liberty to take steps against him in accordance with law. iii. iii. However, the said amount is towards full and final settlement of his daughter including maintenance. iv. Therefore, his daughter is at liberty to take steps against him in future, directly or indirectly in any form. v. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.