JUDGMENT : K. LAKSHMAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant. Despite granting opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 06.07.2017 passed in OP No.426 of 2013 by the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. The appellant – husband filed the aforesaid petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty contending as follows:- i. His marriage with the respondent – wife was performed on 08.12.2004 at Bhilainagar, Durg, Chattisgarh, as per Hindu rites and customs. ii. It is an arranged marriage. iii. They lived happily for two months in Hyderabad where the appellant – husband was working. iv. In March, 2005, during the stay of parents of the appellant – husband in Hyderabad, respondent – wife behaved in disrespectful manner and quarreled with him unnecessarily compelling him to come home late night hours. v. Respondent – wife made an allegation against him that he was in illicit relationship with his friend’s wife and also his sister-in-law. vi. On his demand, she brought back jewellery from Bilaspur and handed over to him. vii. In summer, 2005, cousin of the appellant came to stay in Hyderabad, during which time, she misbehaved with the appellant, for which, his cousin had to leave the house. viii. In 2006, when his brother and sister-in-law came to Hyderabad for a week on vacation, respondent -wife misbehaved with them. ix. In September, 2006, the appellant got job and shifted to U.S.A. Despite repeated requests, she did not stay in the house of her in-laws at Bilaspur and went to her parental house in Bhilai. x. Respondent – wife joined him in U.S.A in August/September 2007. When he called his friends for lunch, she misbehaved with him and abused him in their presence. xi. He informed the same to her father who stated that he would send his son to bring back respondent - wife to India. xii. Respondent – wife stayed in U.S.A for one year with him and became pregnant. Respondent came to India on 25.04.2008 for delivery. Instead of going to Bilaspur, she went to Surat. xiii. He came to India on 01-09-2008. xiv. She was blessed with a male child on 02.09.2008. xii. Respondent – wife stayed in U.S.A for one year with him and became pregnant. Respondent came to India on 25.04.2008 for delivery. Instead of going to Bilaspur, she went to Surat. xiii. He came to India on 01-09-2008. xiv. She was blessed with a male child on 02.09.2008. The respondent and her parents did not inform the same to him. He brought his wife and son from Bhilaynagar to Bilaspur where they stayed for three months and later he left for USA. xv. Despite his objection, she went to back to their parents house and did not return to her conjugal home. xvi. In August, 2009, he came to India at which time, she came to Bilaspur and behaved in cruel manner with her in-laws by throwing household goods and gifts and abused them. xvii. On 07.09.2009, respondent went back to her parental house. When petitioner tried to contact her, she did not respond. She threatened him through e-mail and phone demanding money and pressurizing him for divorce stating that she does not want to live with him. xviii. He gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to her but she demanded him even more. xix. She threatened him to file criminal cases against him and his family members. xx. On 16.05.2011, her parents came to his parents house along with child and stayed overnight. She went away along with child after two days. xxi. On 07.06.2011, she along with her brother and father came to his house in Bilaspur without intimation and tried to conciliate the matter but in vain. xxii. All the above acts of his wife towards him amount to mental cruelty. xxiii. He filed a petition vide Case No.C.S.147A/11 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before Family Court, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, for judicial separation. On the petition filed by respondent – wife before the Supreme Court, the said case was transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad and numbered as O.P.847 of 2012. xxiv. He has withdrawn the said petition by filing a petition which was allowed on 27.11.2012 granting liberty to him to file a petition for divorce pursuant to which present petition was filed. xxv. His marriage with the respondent – wife broke down irretrievably because they are not residing together for the last four years. 4. With the aforesaid contentions, he sought to grant decree of divorce against his wife. 5. xxv. His marriage with the respondent – wife broke down irretrievably because they are not residing together for the last four years. 4. With the aforesaid contentions, he sought to grant decree of divorce against his wife. 5. The respondent – wife filed counter denying the allegations made by the appellant – husband contending:- i. From the inception of the marriage, the appellant ill-treated her developing inferiority complex. He took away her jewellery. ii. Even after the birth of child, there was no change in the appellant. iii. He has not made any efforts to take her and minor son to USA and went on postponing the same under the pretext of getting Visa. But the appellant – husband had not processed for Visa Though she made several efforts to join him through elders, phone calls and e-mails, there was no response from him. Without any fault on her part, her husband left her company by leaving herself and her minor son. iv. She filed Domestic Violence Case which was later withdrawn on his agreeing to pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) which was the expenditure incurred by her parents and not towards maintenance of herself and her son. The said OP is filed by him as an after-thought as a counter – case to D.V.C. case filed by her. v. She would file separate case for maintenance against him as he is staying in U.S.A. earning huge money besides having posh building in Bilaspur. 6. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the petition. 7. To prove the said cruelty, the appellant - husband examined himself as P.W.1 and his mother as P.W.2 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.6. Ex.P.1 marriage card, dated 08.12.2004, Ex.P.2 are three marriage photos, Ex.P.3 is petition in DVC No.394 of 2012 filed by the respondent – wife dated 23.08.2012, Ex.P.4 is petition under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Ex.P.5 is counter filed by the respondent–wife dated 26.07.2013 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.08.2013. 8. To disprove the claim of the appellant – husband, the respondent - wife examined herself as R.W.1 and no document was marked by her. 9. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 06.07.2017, the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said OP. 10. 8. To disprove the claim of the appellant – husband, the respondent - wife examined herself as R.W.1 and no document was marked by her. 9. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 06.07.2017, the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said OP. 10. Assailing the said order, the appellant – husband preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:- i. Learned Trial Court failed to evaluate the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, and wrongly concluded that the cruelty was not proved. ii. Learned Trial Court failed to consider the allegation made by the respondent – wife against him that he was having illicit relationship with his friend’s wife and his sister in law and on the said false allegation, she abusing them and thus subjected them to mental cruelty. iii. Learned Trial Court failed to see that the acts of the respondent – wife against him resulted in damage to peace of mind, social stature and family ties which constitute cruelty. iv. Learned Trial Court ought to have seen that the compromise entered into between the parties in DVC 394 of 2012 is binding on the parties and has effectively extinguished all claims and ties between the parties. v. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant paid huge sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs Only) to the respondent – wife towards settlement of all claims made by her in DVC 394 of 2012 which effectively terminates the marriage. vi. Learned Trial Court failed to see that both the parties are living separately for the last so many years, there is no cohabitation between them. 11. Perusal of the record would reveal that both the appellant and respondent belongs to Chattishgarh State. At the time of marriage, the appellant used to work in Hyderabad. Therefore, they set up family in Hyderabad. It is contended by the husband that in March, 2005, during the stay of his parents in Hyderabad, respondent behaved disrespectfully and quarreled with him unnecessarily compelling him to come home late in night hours. She also alleged that he is maintaining illicit relation with his friend’s wife and his sister-in-law. There is also an allegation that in 2006, when brother and sister-in-law of the appellant – husband came to Hyderabad for a week on vacation, respondent – wife misbehaved with him. She also alleged that he is maintaining illicit relation with his friend’s wife and his sister-in-law. There is also an allegation that in 2006, when brother and sister-in-law of the appellant – husband came to Hyderabad for a week on vacation, respondent – wife misbehaved with him. In September, 2006, the appellant shifted to USA on his job purpose. Despite repeated requests, respondent – wife did not stay in the house of the parents of the appellant – husband at Bilaspur. Ultimately, respondent joined his company in USA in August/September, 2007. There also she misbehaved with the friends of the appellant and abused him in filthy language. It is further alleged that respondent – wife stayed in USA for one year, became pregnant, she came to India on 25.04.2008 for delivery. Instead of going to Bilaspur, she went to Surat. On 01.09.2008, the appellant came to India on receipt of information that he was blessed with a son. The respondent – wife and her parents have not informed the said fact of birth of child to the appellant. On 07.09.2008, the appellant – husband brought his wife and son from Bilaynagar to Bilaspur. 12. In August, 2009, the appellant came to India, she came to Bilaspur. She behaved in cruel manner with her in-laws and misbehaved with them by throwing household goods and gifts and abused them. On 07.09.2009, respondent – wife went back to her parental house. On 16.05.2011, parents of respondent – wife went to her in-laws house along with the child and stayed there overnight. Respondent went away along with the child after two days. On 07.06.2011, she along wither brother and father came to the house of the appellant in Bilaspur without intimation and tried to conciliate the matter but it became a futile exercise. Therefore, he filed a petition vide Case No.C.S.147A/11 of 2011 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation before the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh State. The respondent – wife, filed transfer petition, the Supreme Court transferred the said case from the Family Court, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh to the Family Court, Hyderabad where it is numbered as O.P.No.847 of 2012. He withdrew the said petition on 27.11.2012 with a liberty to file divorce petition. 13. The respondent – wife, filed transfer petition, the Supreme Court transferred the said case from the Family Court, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh to the Family Court, Hyderabad where it is numbered as O.P.No.847 of 2012. He withdrew the said petition on 27.11.2012 with a liberty to file divorce petition. 13. As discussed supra, it is the appellant – husband who filed the aforesaid OP against the respondent – wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the appellant has to plead and prove the same by producing reliable evidence. To prove the same, he examined himself as P.W.1 and his mother as P.W.2. 14. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 – the appellant stated that when his parents were at home, she used to come down and sit downstairs and when he enquired, she stated that his parents were interfering in everything. He does not know where his son was studying however, he stated that he is studying in 2 nd Grade. He does not know how many days he spent with his son exactly. He informed her parents with regard to her behavior. However, he could not say the exact date, month and year. He did not attend the birthday function of his son, but he tried to send gift to his son and his wife has received the same. He also admitted with regard to going to USA, his wife joining with him and she becoming pregnant somewhere in 2008 in USA. She came back to Hyderabad and gave birth to a male child. 15. He has further admitted that after delivery of his son, he tried to take back his wife and son twice. He applied for passport of his Son. But on a question that whether he is ready to take back his wife and son with him, he answered that he is ready to take his son but not his wife. His parents are staying in Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, but due to health issue they also stay in Calcutta. They stay in Calcutta with his elder brother. The residence at Bilaspur is owned by his father. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.08.2013 is marked as Ex.P.6. His understanding with regard to MOU is that Rs.20,00,000/- paid to his wife towards the welfare of his child and his wife. However, he has denied a suggestion that respondent never doubted his character. 16. The residence at Bilaspur is owned by his father. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.08.2013 is marked as Ex.P.6. His understanding with regard to MOU is that Rs.20,00,000/- paid to his wife towards the welfare of his child and his wife. However, he has denied a suggestion that respondent never doubted his character. 16. P.W.2 - mother of the appellant, during cross-examination, admitted that she came to Hyderabad from Calcutta, tried to sort out misunderstandings between the appellant and respondent. 17. During cross-examination, respondent - R.W.1 categorically admitted that she was a qualified of M.Com., and Indian Costs Accounts Works of India ((I.C.W.A.I), by the time of marriage. She was working with FIIT JEE as a Junior Manager Finance, and she has her identity card for the same. She has started working with FIIT JEE in the year 2010. She was staying in Hyderabad since 2010 onwards. She used to stay at Bilaspur in Chattisgarh prior to 2010. In the year 2007, she had worked as a Senior Accountant Officer at Institute of Chartered Financial Analyst of India (I.C.F.A.I). She was unemployed between 2007 to 2010. Since then, till 2009, her husband bore her expenses. She never had any major differences and disputes with the appellant since her marriage. Her husband filed a petition against her seeking judicial separation in the year 2012. On the advice of her advocate, she filed transfer petition before the Supreme Court. She also filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, as she was staying in Hyderabad. She signed MOU in the above case. She is not aware of the dismissal of the said DVC. She does not know anything whether DVC is still continuing or dismissed. She does not attend the Court in the said DVC proceedings. She never asked any Advocate about the said proceedings. She has admitted her signature on Ex.P.6 – MOU dated 28.08.2013. She has also stated with regard to paragraph No.1 of the said MOU. She has admitted that the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to her only towards her expenditure and dowry paid by her father at the time of marriage. She spent the said amount paid by the appellant for education of her son and his maintenance. Her father gave the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- by her father to the father of the appellant. She spent the said amount paid by the appellant for education of her son and his maintenance. Her father gave the said amount of Rs.20,00,000/- by her father to the father of the appellant. Out of the said amount, she spent Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- is remaining. 18. She also admitted about the filing of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for her maintenance and also the maintenance of her child. She has not field any petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She has not sent any legal notice demanding the appellant to join her. She has further admitted that after birth of her child, her husband and in-laws visited her and her son. Her husband and in-laws taken them along with them to Bilaspur, Chattishgarh. She stayed there for one year, thereafter, on 02.09.2009, they have celebrated birthday of her son at her in-laws place. 19. She has further admitted that she will not be given custody of her son to the appellant because the appellant did not spent one single day towards welfare of her son as on the date. The appellant used to send Rs.25,000/- per month for short period i.e. 8 months in the year 2010. Her father visited Bilaspur on 16.05.2011 along with her son. Her father expressed that the parents of the appellant are real custodian of her son. When the appellant visited India on 2008-09, he came to meet her parents place. In the year 2015, but the appellant visited India and wished to meet his son who was in Patna at that particular point of time. She has received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in terms of Ex.P.6 MOU. 20. Perusal of Ex.P.6 MOU, dated 28.08.2013 would reveal that they have agreed to settle all the disputes and the respondent agreed to withdraw all the cases against the appellant and the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The same can be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of wife and her child. She is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the said deposit. Both the appellant and respondent arrived at the said settlement during pendency of DVC. After the said understanding, they joined together. Even then, there is no change in their attitude. Therefore, the appellant has filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the said deposit. Both the appellant and respondent arrived at the said settlement during pendency of DVC. After the said understanding, they joined together. Even then, there is no change in their attitude. Therefore, the appellant has filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, he withdrew the said petition with a liberty to file a petition seeking dissolution of marriage. He has filed the aforesaid OP seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The said appellant filed the aforesaid OP in the year 2013. The same was dismissed on 06.07.2017. Since then, they are not staying together. 21. It is settled principle of law that neither the Family Court nor this Court grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, the said aspect can be considered along with all the other aspects while deciding the present appeal. The afore-stated evidence and discussion would reveal that there is strained relation between the appellant and the respondent. They are highly educated people. Despite Ex.P.6 MOU, they have not joined to lead marital life. Thus, there is no possibility of re-union. Their son is 17 years for the present. 22. Perusal of record would reveal that this appeal was dismissed for default on 17.03.2021. On the application filed by the appellant, it was restored. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the policy obtained by the appellant dated 23.08.2025 in the name of his son of Max Insurance for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to him, his son will get an amount of Rs.8,700/- per month for 5 years and thereafter, Rs.17,000/- per month for ten years. He has also produced a statement to show that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.21,22,449.80 to the respondent towards maintenance of his son. 24.Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order, dated 06.07.2017 passed in O.P.No.426 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said OP on the ground that the appellant failed to prove cruelty. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside and the said OP is to be allowed. 25. 24.Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order, dated 06.07.2017 passed in O.P.No.426 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said OP on the ground that the appellant failed to prove cruelty. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside and the said OP is to be allowed. 25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order, dated 06.07.2017 passed in O.P. No.426 of 2013 by the learned Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside and the said O.P.No.426 of 2013 is allowed granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 08.12.2004 of the appellant - husband with the respondent – wife on the condition of the appellant depositing Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs Only) in the name of his son i.e. Mr. Siddharth Singh within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The aforesaid amount is towards full and final settlement of the claim of his son. Since the respondent – wife is highly educated and she is working, she is not entitled for any permanent alimony. In view of the same, the respondent and her son shall not make any further claim against the appellant – husband in any manner etc. It is also made clear that if the respondent – husband fails to pay the said amount within the aforesaid period of three (3) months from today, liberty is granted to the respondent and her son to take steps against the appellant in accordance with law. 26. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.