Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1821 (TS)

M. Durga Malleshwari v. G. Rajendra Kumar

2025-12-15

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Mr.V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the appellant/wife and Mr.V.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent/husband. 2. Appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. Their marriage was performed on 22.05.2003 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two children i.e., G. Revanth on 04.05.2004 and G. Sasidhar on 23.10.2007. 3. According to the respondent/husband, appellant/wife subjected him to cruelty. She has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the learned Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar against the respondent/husband seeking maintenance. She is very arrogant and adamant. She never showed love and affection towards him. She did not allow him to lead marital life and there is no cohabitation between them immediately after the marriage. She failed to perform the duties and obligations as wife. She used to quarrel with him without any fault. She used to abuse him in filthy language. She used to make false allegations on him. She used to beat him. She used to go to her parents’ house and stay there for months together by leaving him. 4. He has further contended that in the month of June, 2008, appellant/wife insisted him to give an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of business of her brother, namely, Mulagada Venkata Ramana. He did not accept the same, due to which, she got angry and developed aversion against him. She neglected the respondent/husband and never took care of his welfare and also the welfare of their children. She left the matrimonial home in the month of June, 2008 without informing him and having all her gold and also having an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, apart from her belongings. He tried to stop her. She did not heed his request. Thus, appellant/wife subjected him to cruelty. 5. It is further contended by the respondent/husband that due to the said torture, his father died on 10.09.2007. Thereafter, he sent his friend - Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, his mother - Smt. Mariyamma and his uncle – M. Kanaka Raju as mediators and they tried to convince the appellant/wife and also advised her to mend her behavior and to lead happy marital life with him. Appellant/wife did not heed the said request. Thereafter, he sent his friend - Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, his mother - Smt. Mariyamma and his uncle – M. Kanaka Raju as mediators and they tried to convince the appellant/wife and also advised her to mend her behavior and to lead happy marital life with him. Appellant/wife did not heed the said request. Even, the best efforts made by them, appellant/wife did not join him. 6. He further alleged that during her stay, she used to threaten him and his mother every day and ultimately, left the matrimonial house in the month of June, 2008 and she is residing in her parents’ house. There is no cohabitation between them since a long time. In view of the said behavior of the appellant/wife, he filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 7. Appellant/wife filed a counter denying the said allegations. According to her, respondent/husband harassed her both mentally and physically. He is an arrogant and adamant person. He beat her many times. On 15.06.2008, respondent/husband beat her mercilessly and necked out her along with children with a demand to pay additional dowry. She has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. With the said submissions, she sought to dismiss O.P.No.296 of 2010 filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 8. It is also stated that the appellant/wife has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide O.P.No.705 of 2010 against the respondent/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 9. To prove the said cruelty in O.P.No.296 of 2010, respondent/husband examined himself as PW.1 and his brother – G.Praveen Kumar as PW.2 and exhibited Ex.P.1 – Marriage wedding card. To disprove the said cruelty, appellant/wife examined herself as RW.1 and her mother – M. Varalaxmi as RW.2 and marked Ex.B.1 certified copy of order passed in M.C.No.121 of 2009, dated 27.04.2013 (marked by the Advocate Commissioner through RW.1). 10. In support of her claim in O.P.No.705 of 2010 (restitution of conjugal rights O.P.), appellant/wife herself examined as PW.1 and her mother as PW.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 i.e., Ex.P.1 – invitation card, Ex.P.2 – order of this Court and Ex.P.3 – petition copy in M.C.No.121 of 2009. To disprove the said claim, respondent/husband examined himself as RW.1. 11. In support of her claim in O.P.No.705 of 2010 (restitution of conjugal rights O.P.), appellant/wife herself examined as PW.1 and her mother as PW.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 i.e., Ex.P.1 – invitation card, Ex.P.2 – order of this Court and Ex.P.3 – petition copy in M.C.No.121 of 2009. To disprove the said claim, respondent/husband examined himself as RW.1. 11. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide the impugned Common Order dated 22.05.2014, learned the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, allowed O.P.No.296 of 2010 filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, granting decree of divorce. Learned Family Court dismissed O.P.No.705 of 2010 filed by the appellant/wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Common Order, appellant/wife filed the aforesaid appeals. 12. It is relevant to note that both Mr.V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the appellant/wife and Mr.V.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, on instructions, would submit that both husband and wife are not interested to stay together to lead the marital life. Their children are now aged about 21 and 18 years old respectively. 13. It is a settled principle of law 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. 14. As discussed supra, they are not staying together from 15.06.2008 onwards. They have filed the aforesaid O.Ps. in the year 2010 and the same were allowed and dismissed respectively vide the impugned common order, dated 22.05.2014. Appellant/wife preferred the present appeals in the year 2015. 15. The aforesaid facts would reveal that they are living separately from the year 2008 onwards. There is no possibility for their reunion. Respondent/husband is working as Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and he has five more years of service. Appellant/wife alone brought up their two children. Both the children are now majors. Respondent/husband has not filed any application seeking custody of the children and also the visitation rights. Accordingly, appellant/wife alone brought up them and they became majors now. 16. Mr. Appellant/wife alone brought up their two children. Both the children are now majors. Respondent/husband has not filed any application seeking custody of the children and also the visitation rights. Accordingly, appellant/wife alone brought up them and they became majors now. 16. Mr. V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the appellant/wife, on instructions, would submit that since she has no interest to lead the marital life with the respondent/husband, sought for an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs towards permanent alimony. 17. Mr.V.V.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, on instructions, would submit that he has paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife and children towards maintenance in terms of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.121 of 2009. However, learned counsel for the appellant/wife disputes the said fact. 18. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by both the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent, both appellant and respondent are not interested to stay together and there is no possibility of their reunion. Therefore, going into the merits of the case is not necessary. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/husband is working as Development Officer in LIC and he has five more years of service. Admittedly, appellant/wife has brought up both the children. An amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs demanded by the appellant/wife towards permanent alimony is reasonable and justifiable. 19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, a) F.C.A.No.32 of 2015 is dismissed by confirming the Order dated 22.05.2014 in O.P.No.705 of 2010 (restitution of conjugal rights O.P.) passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. Consequently, O.P.No.705 of 2010 is dismissed; and b) The Order dated 22.05.2014 in O.P.No.296 of 2010 passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, granting decree of divorce is hereby confirmed and the respondent/husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the appellant/wife towards permanent alimony, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, failing which, liberty is granted to the appellant/wife to take appropriate steps against the respondent/husband. However, it is made clear that the said amount is towards full and final settlement, including, permanent alimony and further, she is not entitled to claim any amount. Accordingly, F.C.A.No.34 of 2015 is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, it is made clear that the said amount is towards full and final settlement, including, permanent alimony and further, she is not entitled to claim any amount. Accordingly, F.C.A.No.34 of 2015 is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.