Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 286 (TS)

Voleti Vinay Rao v. Vallabhaneni Swarajya lakshmi

2025-04-09

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.) 1. The instant Appeal arises out of an order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.63 of 2017 filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) where under divorce was granted subject to payment of Rs.50,00,000/- to the minor (Viswas). 2. The contentions of the appellant and respondent are as follows : 2.1. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife was performed on 11.06.2009 at Hotel Sai Anupama, near ECIL X Road, Malkajgiri Mandal and they lived happily till April, 2010. The respondent has harassed the petitioner physically and mentally. In the month of April, 2010 she left the company of the petitioner stating that the petitioner should join her after complying her demands. The respondent gave birth to a male child on 04.06.2010 and thereafter she did not turn back to the conjugal society. Elders from his side by name K.Subba Rao, Alla Srinivas conducted a meeting but could not be materialized. 2.2. The respondent filed her counter and submitted that she and her husband lived happily till April, 2010, the petitioner and his family members have suppressed the petitioner’s age as well as his divorce with his first wife. The petitioner is having relationship with one Nandini, she used to record their physical relations in C.D. The petitioner used to harass the respondent for additional dowry. 2.3. The respondent unable to bear the harassment of the petitioner, lodged a complaint before P.S. KPHB and case in Crime No.642 of 2016 is registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur. The petitioner is having agricultural land of 8.5 Acres worth Rs.4.5 Crores at Nuziveedu, Krishna District (Andhra Pradesh) and another land to an extent of 12.5 Acres in the same locality worth Rs.6.5. Crores, the petitioner also own house at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a Civil Contractor, doing works in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, earning Crores of Rupees, having movable and immovable properties and having Net cash of more than Rs.3 Crores. The respondent is entitled to claim Rs.2 Crores towards permanent alimony and prayed to dismiss the case. 3. Crores, the petitioner also own house at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a Civil Contractor, doing works in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, earning Crores of Rupees, having movable and immovable properties and having Net cash of more than Rs.3 Crores. The respondent is entitled to claim Rs.2 Crores towards permanent alimony and prayed to dismiss the case. 3. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties and came to a finding that the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent on 11.06.2009 is dissolved by decree of divorce subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the minor (Viswas) by way of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank, the decree of dissolution of marriage should be effective after depositing the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed a manifest error in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the minor by way of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank. The Trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant has proved his case for grant of decree of divorce, no onerous condition can be imposed for passing the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. The Trial Court has no jurisdiction to direct the appellant to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of his minor son as a condition for effecting the decree of divorce. The Trial Court failed to see that the respondent did not lay any foundation in the pleadings and did not adduce any evidence for grant of Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of minor son. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the respondent has claimed permanent alimony of Rs.2 Crores but the Trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the parties and taking into consideration the child born between them directed the appellant to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the minor in any Nationalized Bank, the Trial Court has fairly passed an order which requires no interference of this Court. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to direct the appellant to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the child (Viswas). 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to direct the appellant to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the child (Viswas). Section 7 of the Family Court Act deals with jurisdiction and the nature of cases such as dissolution of marriage, and the Family Court has power to lay down its own procedure as in sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act says that the Court may make such provision in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to maintenance and education of the minor. 8. Appellant has challenged the direction of depositing Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the minor by name Viswas as the dissolution of marriage will be effective after depositing the amount. 9. The case of the respondent is that the appellant possess agricultural lands at Nuziveedu, Krishna District admeasuring Rs.8.5 Acres worth Rs.4.5 Crores and 12.5 Acres worth Rs.6.5 Crores and also possessed House at Yousufguda, Hyderabad, apart from that the appellant is doing Civil Contract works at Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and earning Crores of Rupees, possess movable and immovable properties. The appellant is having net cash of Rs.3 Crores in hand. 10. The appellant/petitioner in his cross-examination stated that his family is having 20 Acres of land at Madicherla Village, Papulapadu Mandal, Krishna District and that he is earning Rs.30,000/- per annum out of the land, and also cultivating Palm oil trees. The appellant further stated that at the time of his marriage he was doing agriculture and has not paid any maintenance, educational expenses and other expenses since 2010 by the date of his cross-examination i.e., 22.02.2020. PW.2 is the relative of the appellant, he stated in the cross-examination that the appellant is cultivating Palm oil plantation and raising two crops in a year and that at the time of marriage the appellant was running a Hero-Honda Show Room at Motinagar, Hyderabad. PW.3 is the relative of the appellant. PW.2 is the relative of the appellant, he stated in the cross-examination that the appellant is cultivating Palm oil plantation and raising two crops in a year and that at the time of marriage the appellant was running a Hero-Honda Show Room at Motinagar, Hyderabad. PW.3 is the relative of the appellant. He also stated that in the year 2005, the appellant was having Hero-Honda Show Room at Motinagar, Hyderabad, he run the shop for 2 to 3 years and that the appellant did not do any Real Estate business, he has gone to an extent of saying that the appellant is not doing any work for survival since 2009 and that the appellant is helping his father in agricultural work. 11.1. While granting alimony/maintenance no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude, it shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. The Court is required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the child (Viswas) should be such as he can live in reasonable comfort considering the status and the mode of life, at the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. 11.2. The living of the child (Viswas) need not be luxurious but simultaneously he should not be left to live in discomfort. Admittedly, the child (Viswas) was born on 04.06.2010, by the date of order (i.e., 01.10.2022) Viswas was aged about 11 years and odd and no money is paid by the appellant towards the maintenance of the child. 12. The evidence of the parties goes to show that the appellant and his family members are possessing properties and he has done business by running Hero-Honda Show Room at Motinagar, Hyderabad prior to his marriage and might have earned sufficient amount. 13. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the admission made by the appellant that since 2010, he has not paid any maintenance, educational expenses or other expenses by the date of his cross-examination (20.02.2020). It further observed at Para No.18 of the order that “it is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the only son of his parents and having movable and immovable properties. It further observed at Para No.18 of the order that “it is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the only son of his parents and having movable and immovable properties. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 disclosed that the petitioner is doing agricultural, real-estate and civil contractor and having 20 Acres of agricultural land. Even after that the petitioner did not give any money for the maintenance of minor child”. It cannot be said that Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass orders granting maintenance to the child. 14. We therefore, find no reasons to take a different view from the one taken by the trial Court. The Trial court correctly passed the order on a correct appreciation of the facts and evidence. 15. In the result, Appeal is dismissed. All connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.