Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1913 (TS)

S. Santhoshi Kumari v. Srinivas Sagard

2025-12-24

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K.Lakshman, J. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We have heard Mr. C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the Order and Decree dated 15.04.2015 in O.P.No.65 of 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. 3. Appellant herein is the wife and respondent herein is the husband. Their marriage was performed on 15.06.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a male child on 03.08.2007. Thereafter respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide O.P.No.65 of 2009 against the appellant herein seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. According to the respondent, appellant deserted him on 20.01.2007. 4. Respondent filed the aforesaid O.P. contending that the marriage was consummated and they resided at Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, with the parents of respondent. On the very third day of marriage, the appellant created a scene by quarreling with the respondent and his parents. From then, she stopped cohabiting with the respondent apart from refusing to assist his mother in the household work. It is further alleged that in the month of July, 2006, the brother of the appellant came to the house of the respondent along with his parents and continued to live in their house though his parents left from their house. On the next day, the appellant took money from the almirah of the respondent and gave it to her brother. Thus, the said amount was missing. Appellant questioned her on the same. She informed that she gave money to her brother. On 05.08.2006, respondent decided to go to Bangalore to get equipment of his gym along with his colleagues for which appellant insisted him to take her along with him. On the same, she quarreled with him and abused in filthy language apart from creating nuisance and misbehaving with him. He has further alleged that the appellant used to spend lavish life and she never taken care of his mother and she used to quarrel with him and his parents. 5. On the same, she quarreled with him and abused in filthy language apart from creating nuisance and misbehaving with him. He has further alleged that the appellant used to spend lavish life and she never taken care of his mother and she used to quarrel with him and his parents. 5. Respondent and his parents constructed a house at Hasthinapuram and the appellant insisted to give the Mulgi in the said house to her brother for free of rent and when he refused, she picked up quarrel and created big nuisance. She has also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against him. Thus, appellant subjected him to cruelty. Unable to bear such harassment, his mother left abroad on 10.01.2007. Appellant went to her parents’ house and did not return. Subsequently, she was blessed with a male child on 03.08.2007. She never informed him about the same to the respondent and his parents. When he came to know about the same, he went to the house of in-laws to see the child but the parents and brother of the respondent did not allow him to see the child apart from abusing him in filthy language. Efforts were made to settle the matter with the help of community elders and mediation, but the same was ended in failure due to the adamant attitude of the appellant herein. Thus, according to the respondent, appellant deserted him and subjected to cruelty. 6. Appellant filed counter denying the said allegations. According to her, she never subjected the respondent to cruelty and she never deserted him. She filed the wedding card of the respondent, who married second time. She has also admitted about the conduct of mediation/panchayat and failure of the same. She has also further stated that she has lodged a complaint against respondent and his parents for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. He has obtained ex parte decree on 01.07.2009 by playing fraud on the Court. 7. To prove the said cruelty desertion, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and filed Ex.P.1 marriage photos (two in numbers). To disprove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant examined herself as RW.1 and her relative as RW.2. He has obtained ex parte decree on 01.07.2009 by playing fraud on the Court. 7. To prove the said cruelty desertion, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and filed Ex.P.1 marriage photos (two in numbers). To disprove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant examined herself as RW.1 and her relative as RW.2. She has filed Exs.R.1 to R.5 i.e., Ex.R.1 engagement photo, Ex.R.2 marriage photo, Ex.R.3 discharge summary dated 09.08.2007 of Sidhartha Nursing Home, Ex.R.4 fee card of Sai Teja and Ex.R.5 certified copy of Form No.11 in O.P.No.65 of 2009. 8. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 15.04.2015, learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.65 of 2009 and granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent. 9. As discussed supra, it is the respondent who filed the aforesaid O.P. against the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, burden lies on the respondent to plead and prove the same. 10. Perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant herein remained ex parte in the said O.P. Therefore, learned Family Court allowed the said O.P.No.65 of 2009 on 01.07.2009 and granted decree of divorce. Appellant has filed an interlocutory application on 16.03.2011 to set aside the ex parte order, dated 01.07.2009 and the said interlocutory application was allowed in the year 2012. 11. As discussed supra, their marriage is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a male child on 03.08.2007. He is now aged about 18 years. He became major. Admittedly, appellant brought up the child. Though respondent contended that on coming to know about the birth of the child, he went to his in-laws house to see the child and he was not permitted to see the child, even then, he has not filed any application seeking visitation or custody of the child. 12. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the appellant herein has not filed any application seeking maintenance. She has not even filed any application seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is not in dispute that she has lodged a complaint against respondent and his parents. On receipt of the said complaint dated 16.03.2011, Police have registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2011 against the respondent for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. She has not even filed any application seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is not in dispute that she has lodged a complaint against respondent and his parents. On receipt of the said complaint dated 16.03.2011, Police have registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2011 against the respondent for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. It is also not in dispute that the appellant filed an application under Section 12 of the DVC Act, 2005. 13. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after obtaining ex parte order dated 01.07.2009, respondent got married one Aishwarya Varma Rathod on 18.10.2009 i.e., prior to getting the said ex parte decree dated 01.07.2009 set aside. Ex.R.5 is the said ex parte order. 14. As discussed supra, respondent has filed the aforesaid O.P. in the year 2009 and the same was allowed on 01.07.2009. Later, the said ex parte order was set aside. Thereafter, the learned Family Court allowed the said O.P. on 15.04.2015. Appellant filed the present appeal in the year 2015. Thus, they are not staying together from the year 2009 onwards. 15. It is settled principle that neither Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, but certainly it is an aspect to be considered by this Court along with other aspects. 16. As discussed supra, though the respondent made certain allegations against the appellant herein, he has not examined any one including his brother, mother, etc. He has filed only Ex.P.1- marriage photos. However, learned Family Court granted decree of divorce on the ground that after passing of ex parte decree dated 01.07.2009, respondent re-married on 18.10.2009. Respondent is a business man. He has not paid any amount either to the appellant or to his son. She only brought up the child. Therefore, he has to pay permanent alimony to the appellant herein and maintenance to the child. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent informed this Court that the respondent is not in touch with him. 17. It is opt to note that in her deposition, appellant herein categorically stated that she has filed an application under Section 12 of DVC Act. Learned Magistrate has awarded an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards monthly maintenance to her and son. 17. It is opt to note that in her deposition, appellant herein categorically stated that she has filed an application under Section 12 of DVC Act. Learned Magistrate has awarded an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards monthly maintenance to her and son. Respondent approached this Court by challenging the said order and this Court granted stay therein. It is pending. 18. In the light of the same, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of reunion of parties. Despite granting opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 in O.P.No.65 of 2009 passed by the learned Family Court granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent dissolving his marriage with the appellant is hereby confirmed subject to the condition of respondent paying an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the appellant and her son towards permanent alimony and maintenance, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said amount is towards full and final settlement all claims of the appellant and her son including permanent alimony to the appellant and maintenance of her child, which includes the claim of the appellant in the application filed by her under the provisions of the DVC Act. On receipt of the said amount, appellant and her son shall not make any claim against the respondent for whatsoever. However, liberty is granted to the appellant and her son to take steps in accordance with law if the respondent failed to deposit the said amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs within the stipulated time. 19. With the above directions, this Family Court Appeal is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.