Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1820 (TS)

A. Chandra Mohan v. A. Pavani

2025-12-15

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Smt.Indira, learned counsel for the appellant/husband. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/wife. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.07.2013 in F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, the appellant/husband preferred the present appeal. 3. Appellant/husband filed an application under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 4. Appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.06.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. It is second marriage to both of them. They have blessed with a female child in the year 2009 and now she is aged about 16 years old. 5. It is the specific contention of the appellant herein that he has obtained decree of divorce legally by filing O.P.No.251 of 2000 on the file of learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, against his first wife. Whereas, the respondent did not obtain divorce from her first husband legally. She has obtained decree of divorce by way of entering into Ex.B.1 Memorandum of deed of mutual separation. She has suppressed the said fact. 6. According to the appellant/husband, respondent/wife subjected him to cruelty. She never shouldered any responsibility or behaved in such a manner. She never respected the appellant and his parents. She used to pick up quarrels with him on trivial issues. She used to go to her parents’ house frequently without informing the appellant. She used to speak to her brother-in-law and on observing, his habits, attitude, his looks, etc., appellant warned her. But, she did not refrain from speaking about him. His parents gently advised her not to repeat the same. Respondent conceived in the month of February, 2007. She did not heed any of the advises of the appellant and his parents. She refused for medical check-ups. Subsequently, she complained severe stomach pain and was hospitalized and she had to undergo abortion. Neither the respondent nor her elders regretted to share any information to the appellant or his family members. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent and she continued the same irresponsible nature. 7. It is further contended that a panchayat was held in the presence of the elders. Neither the respondent nor her elders regretted to share any information to the appellant or his family members. There was no change in the attitude of the respondent and she continued the same irresponsible nature. 7. It is further contended that a panchayat was held in the presence of the elders. On mutual understanding and the undertaking given by the respondent, elders advised them to live together. In the year 2008, respondent conceived her second pregnancy and gave birth to a baby girl on 28.01.2009. Even then there is no change in the attitude of the respondent. She continued harassing the appellant and his family members. Thus, according to the appellant, respondent subjected him to cruelty. 8. Respondent denied the said allegations and according to her, it is the appellant/husband, who subjected her to cruelty. 9. It is apt to note that the respondent/wife and her daughter filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.10 of 2012. Vide common order, dated 05.07.2013, learned Family Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed M.C.No.10 of 2012 filed by the respondent/wife and daughter seeking maintenance, awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant/husband has been paying the said maintenance amount and there is no default. 10. To prove the cruelty and to disprove the claim made by the wife and daughter, appellant/husband examined himself as RW.1 and his mother as RW.2. He has filed Ex.B.1 Memorandum of deed of mutual separation. 11. To disprove the allegation of cruelty made by the appellant/husband and in support of her claim in a petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.10 of 2012, respondent/wife examined herself as PW.1 and her father as PW.2. She has filed Exs.A.1 to A.3 i.e., Ex.A.1 – two photos, Ex.A.2 – photo and Ex.A.3 – sheet containing marriage photos. 12. On the request made by both the appellant and respondent, learned Family Court decided both F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 and M.C.No.10 of 2012. Vide the common order dated 05.07.2013, learned Family Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 filed by the appellant/husband and allowed M.C.No.10 of 2012 filed by the respondent/wife and daughter, awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter. 13. Vide the common order dated 05.07.2013, learned Family Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 filed by the appellant/husband and allowed M.C.No.10 of 2012 filed by the respondent/wife and daughter, awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the daughter. 13. As discussed supra, despite granting opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/wife. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that respondent/wife is working as Office-in-charge in a hospital and she can maintain herself on her own. Appellant was affected with Corona Virus and he is not in a position to pay anything to his daughter towards her maintenance. He is depending on his cousin. He has been paying an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent and his daughter with the assistance of his mother and cousin. 15. Admittedly, it is the second marriage to both of them. Appellant/husband filed the aforesaid O.P. in the year 2011 and according to him, respondent/wife has deserted him in the year 2010 itself. Thus, they are living separately from the year 2010 onwards. 16. 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. 17. As discussed supra, to prove the said cruelty, appellant/husband examined himself as RW.1 and his mother as RW.2. During cross-examination of PW.1-wife, she admitted that except through Ex.B.1 Memorandum of deed of mutual separation, she did not dissolve the marriage with her first husband through any Court proceeding. 18. During cross-examination of PW.2 – father of PW.1 (wife), he admitted that Ex.B.1 is memorandum of understanding between the respondent/wife and her first husband. Except that they did not obtain divorce from any Court. He is retired from Army and used to get Rs.3,500/- per month as pension then and Rs.6,000/- per month on the date of evidence. Respondent/wife gave a dinner after the marriage for about 1000 guests. Then, it was informed that appellant is working in CRM as security guard in Shamshabad Airport. His daughter was treated cordially after the marriage. One year after the marriage, PW.1 was in their house and after the panchayat, she joined her husband. 19. Respondent/wife gave a dinner after the marriage for about 1000 guests. Then, it was informed that appellant is working in CRM as security guard in Shamshabad Airport. His daughter was treated cordially after the marriage. One year after the marriage, PW.1 was in their house and after the panchayat, she joined her husband. 19. Further, he has also categorically admitted that both the parties are living separately since six months of the pregnancy of PW.1. They have not sent any notice for restitution of conjugal rights. PW.1 studied upto Intermediate. She is not doing any job. Thus, they are staying separately from the year 2010 onwards. Learned Family Court failed to consider the said aspects. There is no possibility for reunion of the parties for leading marital life. Appellant/husband is now aged about 46 years old and respondent/wife is now aged about 41 years old. Their daughter is now aged about 16 years old. The said aspects were not considered by the learned Family Court. 20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Order dated 05.07.2013 in F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 passed by the learned Family Court is hereby set aside. F.C.O.P.No.366 of 2011 filed by the appellant/husband seeking dissolution of marriage against respondent/wife is allowed by granting decree of divorce. 21. In view of the fact that the respondent/wife is working as Office-in-charge in a Hospital, she can maintain herself on her own, therefore, we are of the view that she is not entitled for any permanent alimony. However, liberty is granted to their daughter to claim maintenance, including the share in the properties of the appellant, etc., by initiating appropriate proceedings. 22. With the aforesaid findings, this Family Court Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.