JUDGMENT : (B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/wife aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in O.P.No.465 of 2010, dated 18.08.2015 by granting a decree of judicial separation on the application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2.1. It is stated in the O.P. filed by the respondent/husband that his marriage with the appellant/wife was performed on 24.04.1992 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, at Chaitanyapuri Colony, Hyderabad and they are not blessed with children. From the date of marriage, the appellant/wife never cared the respondent/husband nor performed her obligations as a wife in the matrimonial society. Appellant/wife is working as Assistant in Deaf and Dumb Government School at Miryalaguda and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and she used to look down the respondent/husband, who is working as a Typist in GHMC. Appellant/wife is educated better than the respondent/husband, that is also a reason to look down him by his wife. Appellant/wife has lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC against the respondent/husband and his parents at PS Saroornagar on 26.04.2007 only to harass them, at a later point of time, the said compliant has been withdrawn. 2.2. Parents of the respondent/husband are aged about 75 years and 60 years, the appellant/wife used to behave abnormally with the family members and used filthy language which caused mental depression apart from tension. Sister-in-law of the appellant lodged a complaint against the appellant/wife and her brother under Section 498-A of IPC unable to bear the torture. It is further contended in the O.P. that respondent/husband paid an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- by way of cheque to his wife in the name of one B.Narahari for purchasing a Flat at Lakshmi Apartments at Saroornagar in the year 1999. Parents of the appellant/wife never gave her any dowry in the form of cash or gold. Appellant/wife was not interested in children and she underwent abortion without his consent. Respondent/husband is unable to live in peace and is in distress due to the behaviour of his wife, which is beyond his control and his marriage is broken down beyond redemption and prayed to grant decree of judicial separation. 3.1. Appellant/wife was not interested in children and she underwent abortion without his consent. Respondent/husband is unable to live in peace and is in distress due to the behaviour of his wife, which is beyond his control and his marriage is broken down beyond redemption and prayed to grant decree of judicial separation. 3.1. Appellant/wife filed counter in the O.P. filed by her husband and contended that her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of cash, presented five tulas of gold, furniture, household articles as per the demands of her husband and his family members. Appellant/wife was working in a Residential School for Deaf and Dumb at Miryalaguda, at the time of marriage respondent/husband and his family members have put a condition that she has to hand over all her salary to run the family so that they can lead happy life. Respondent/husband and his parents are greedy for money and they use to take her entire salary without providing basic necessities. Appellant/wife is drawing more salary than of her husband and she never acted in a superior manner and degraded her husband. Appellant/wife was transferred to Hyderabad in the month of October, 1993, during that time her husband and his family members were instigating her to hand over her entire salary. In the year 1994, they put up a separate family, but the respondent/husband never used to give money to run the house. 3.2. Respondent/husband used to beat her by picking up quarrel with her without no reason and he got addicted to bad voices and was harassing her for demanding for a marriage with her sister for begetting children when her sister’s marriage was fixed and he created a big scene thereat. Appellant/wife is paying the housing loan installments and her husband has demanded her to sell the Flat to build a house in the Plot belonging to him, with great difficulty, she has provided Rs.1,00,000/- to her husband by subscribing in a chit and thereafter, her husband has constructed a house, celebrated House-Warming ceremony without inviting her. Appellant/wife has suffered with chikungunya neither her husband nor his parents have turned up to see her. She lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and during the course of the counseling she withdrew the same, her husband used to demand Rs.10,000/- per month from her salary. 3.3. Appellant/wife has suffered with chikungunya neither her husband nor his parents have turned up to see her. She lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and during the course of the counseling she withdrew the same, her husband used to demand Rs.10,000/- per month from her salary. 3.3. Respondent/husband threatened her that he will go for second marriage secretly if she did not consent for the same. On 02.08.2011 her husband has sat on her neck, which caused bleeding injuries, thereby she lodged a complaint before the police and her husband has promised to look after her but continued his harassment, she is living with her husband even though there is no change in his attitude by bearing the harassment and cruelty. She has lived with her husband for a period of 20 years and she is not willing for judicial separation, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Respondent who is the petitioner in the O.P. has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 - Wedding Card, also examined PWs.2 to 5 on his side. Appellant being the respondent in the O.P. is examined as RW.1 and also examined RW.2 and RW.3. 5. The Trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the parties has allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent/husband and granted decree of judicial separation from the date of order (18.08.2015) without disturbing the present residence of the wife and both the parties are directed to pay their own costs. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court failed to consider the case in proper prospective and failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties, came to a wrong conclusion and granted decree of judicial separation. The observation of the Trial Court is that the appellant/wife has indirectly supported her husband that he had been facing cruelty in the matrimonial relationship. The Trial Court observation that the parties to the marriage require a break in their relationship is perverse. The Trial Court failed to note that appellant/wife stayed with her husband for a period of 20 years and she had love and affection towards her husband, in contrary respondent/husband has shown cruelty towards his wife and she is ready to live with her husband till her last breath. The Trial Court failed to note that appellant/wife stayed with her husband for a period of 20 years and she had love and affection towards her husband, in contrary respondent/husband has shown cruelty towards his wife and she is ready to live with her husband till her last breath. The respondent/husband has not established his case except examining his family members, on the other hand appellant/wife has examined an independent witness as RW.3 which is sufficient to reject the contention of the respondent/husband. Respondent/husband failed to prove his case. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) V.Jyothi Vs. V.Suresh, 2000 (5) ALD 153 (DB) (2) R.Jagadeesh Vs. R.Renuka, 2013 (5) ALD 69 (DB). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the parties and came to a conclusion that the respondent/husband has proved his case and thereby granted a decree of judicial separation and there are no grounds to set aside the same in the Appeal. 8. Learned counsel have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10.1. On reading of Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that either party to the marriage may present their petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13. 10.2. Now we have to see whether the respondent/husband has made out any grounds for grant of judicial separation in view of the grounds mentioned in Order 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 11. The dispute between the parties started in the month of April, 2007, when the appellant/wife has lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC at Saroornagar Police Station. It is the case of the respondent/husband that appellant/wife got aborted in the month of September 1992 in a Hospital at Hyderabad, and that she used to threaten the husband that the appellant would commit suicide and implicate all the family members in the criminal case which caused severe mental agony and insecure feeling. Respondent/husband is examined as PW.1, and he was cross-examined at length. Respondent/husband is examined as PW.1, and he was cross-examined at length. Respondent/husband in his cross-examination has admitted that the case filed under Section 498-A of IPC was compromised between the parties on 27.04.2007 and after compromise, they lived together for a period of one year. After purchasing a Flat at Kothapeta, they lived in the said flat from 2003 to 2006 and he has not lodged any complaint before the police when his wife has left his society without intimation. Respondent/husband has denied the suggestion that due to the harassment made by him and his family members, the appellant/wife lodged a complaint before the police. His wife got aborted for the second time but he do not know the reason that abortion for second time is due to ill-health. 12. PW.2 is the brother of the respondent/husband and PW.4 is the wife of PW.2. Their evidence is to the extent that the appellant/wife has caused mental discomfort towards the husband and his parents and she used filthy language and subjected them to domestic violence and that the respondent/husband and his parents used to suffer physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the appellant/wife. 13. PW.3 who is the father of the respondent/husband deposed that the appellant/wife used to abuse him and his wife in filthy language and that the appellant/wife has slapped the respondent/husband on his face in front of him and his wife, when they tried to stop the appellant/wife she subjected them to cruelty and she has threatened the respondent/husband and his family members that she will commit suicide and implicate the entire family in the Criminal case. PW.3 evidence further goes to show that the appellant/wife used to abuse him that shameless fellow, useless fellow and used to treat him as an attender as he worked as an attender in Director of Municipal Corporation Administration. 14. PW.5 is one of the relative of the respondent/husband, he has given one of his daughter to the brother of the respondent/husband and his evidence is similar to that of PWs.2 and 4 in respect of harassment of appellant/wife. His cross-examination part goes to show that still the appellant/wife is residing with the respondent/husband and he admitted that the appellant/wife has lost her pregnancy. 15.1. Appellant/wife stated in her cross-examination that she has not filed any document to show that her pregnancy was aborted due to Fetus was not proper. His cross-examination part goes to show that still the appellant/wife is residing with the respondent/husband and he admitted that the appellant/wife has lost her pregnancy. 15.1. Appellant/wife stated in her cross-examination that she has not filed any document to show that her pregnancy was aborted due to Fetus was not proper. It is not in dispute that the appellant/wife has undergone abortion twice, which fact is admitted by respondent/husband. Appellant/wife stated that she was forced to lodge a complaint before CCS Women Police Station, Basheerbagh, as the respondent/husband beat her severely, thereby, complaint under Section 498-A of IPC is filed, and that she has not filed any O.P., for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So also she has not filed medical certificate to show that she has taken treatment on 02.08.2011. 15.2. The father of the appellant/wife is examined as RW.2, and his evidence is the replica of his daughter’s evidence. In his cross-examination he stated that his daughter has informed him about the harassment made by her husband but he has not physically seen the same, and that respondent/husband never asked him to perform the marriage of his second daughter with him as the appellant/wife has not begotten the children. It is the case of appellant/wife in the counter that as she has not begotten the children, respondent/husband has insisted for second marriage with her sister. The admission made by RW.2 in his cross- examination falsifies the contention of the appellant/wife in that aspect. As per RW.2, his daughter and his son-in-law, resided in Miryalaguda, from 2009 to 2011, he has admitted that his daughter has lodged complaint before the Police, and the same was withdrawn subsequently. 15.3. RW.3 is an independent witness, her evidence is to the extent that the appellant/wife and respondent/husband stayed at Banjara Hills. In her cross-examination, she stated that during 2009 to 2011, appellant/wife worked as Teacher in Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, and during that period, she used to reside thereat, and that the parents of respondent/husband are good in nature, and that the respondent’s/husband’s mother used to inform her that the appellant/wife has not begotten children. 16. In her cross-examination, she stated that during 2009 to 2011, appellant/wife worked as Teacher in Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, and during that period, she used to reside thereat, and that the parents of respondent/husband are good in nature, and that the respondent’s/husband’s mother used to inform her that the appellant/wife has not begotten children. 16. Threatening the husband that she will commit suicide and implicate all the family members is within the scope of mental cruelty and also slapping the respondent/husband in the presence of his parents will definitely demoralises his character before his parents, which is also part of the mental cruelty. 17. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that when a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the Court may, on the application by petition of either party on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so. 18. The above said provision states that the decree for judicial separation can be rescinded on a petition filed by either party if it consider just and reasonable to do so. 19. In V.Jyothi Vs. V.Suresh1, the High Court observed that the allegations or cruelty without sufficient particulars are not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof which lies on the respondent/petitioner who is seeking judicial separation. The respondent/husband has not specified sufficient particulars about the cruelty thereby the findings of the Trial Court is set aside. 20. In R.Jagadeesh Vs. Renuka, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the grounds pleaded by the appellant/husband are that the respondent used to wake up at 9.00 A.M. and was not doing any domestic work, she was in a moody condition and she was an Aasthama patient, the Division Bench observed that the grounds mentioned by the husband even if taken as true could not amend to cruelty. 21. The above said decisions cited by the appellant’s counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the appellant/wife was rude, uncaring, negligent and she used to slap the respondent/husband on his face in the presence of his parents, which fact is also spoken by PW.3, who is the father-in- law of the appellant. The evidence of PW.3 inspires more confidence about the behaviour of the appellant/wife in her matrimonial home. PW.3 also deposed that the appellant/wife used to slap his son (respondent/husband) in their presence and that she used filthy language and treated him as an attender. The appellant’s language against her in-laws is evident that she used to abuse them as useless fellows, shameless fellows. 22. The evidence adduced by the respondent/husband is sufficient to come to a conclusion that he underwent cruelty in the hands of the appellant/wife, which fact is discussed by the Trial Court in the Judgment elaborately. Judicial separation allows the couple to live apart while still maintaining their marital status. The decree for judicial separation can be rescinded on the application by way of a petition by either party if it is considered just and reasonable to do so. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court and it has rightly allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent/husband. 23. 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. 24. FCA No.240 of 2015 is accordingly, dismissed. All connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.