Telangana High Court
S.Kumara Swamy vs S. Kavitha on 4 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NOs.93 AND 99 OF 2024
Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. These Appeals arise out of the impugned order passed
by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
Nagar, dated 29.12.2023 in F.C.O.P.No.190 of 2015 filed by
the appellant for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty
and desertion under section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, respectively. The appellant's F.C.O.P.
was dismissed with costs by the learned Family Court.
3. We had recorded the submissions made on behalf of the
respondent that the respondent was not interested in
contesting the Appeals since the respondent was also
inclined for obtaining a divorce. The Proceeding Sheet dated
09.07.2025 records the stand of the respondent and also
records that both the parties were personally present in
Court on that date and that the appellant is not ready to give
permanent alimony to the respondent exceeding
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only). The Court was of the
view that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was grossly
insufficient since the child (minor son) of the parties is
residing with the respondent since 10.10.2009 (birth of
child). The child is presently studying Intermediate First
Year.
4. The parties were thereafter directed to file their
respective Memos showing the expenses incurred by the
respondent for maintaining the child, including paying for the
child's education and other miscellaneous costs for his
upbringing. The respective Memos reflect the expenses
undertaken by the respondent and the appellant's answer to
those expenses.
5. The appellant's answer to these expenses cannot be
relied upon in its entirety. An instance of this is the
statement of the appellant that no amount is due for return
of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only). The
reason given is that the said amount was disproved in the
Criminal Case C.C.No.283 of 2017 filed by the respondent
and is pending consideration before this Court.
6. We are however shown an order of a learned Single
Judge of this Court dated 09.02.2016 in Crl.R.C.No.1107 of
2015 wherein the appellant had challenged the judgment
passed in Crl.A.No.373 of 2013 with regard to payment of
certain amounts to the respondent. The High Court held that
there was no room for any interference with the order passed
by the Trial Court which would include the dowry amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The Court also reduced the sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards
maintenance and residential accommodation per month to
Rs.9,000/- per month which the appellant was directed to
pay. The Crl.R.C. was subsequently disposed of confirming
the order of the Trial Court.
7. The appellant's statement with regard to the dowry
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- not being due is hence incorrect.
8. We have considered the Memo filed on behalf of the
respondent with regard to the expenses in detail.
9. The Memo states that the respondent has spent a total
amount of Rs.26,41,900/- for the minor son till date.
10. We also note that the expense for Intermediate
education in 'Vidyapeeth/Educational Institution', which is a
two-year course, is Rs.1,13,750/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Only) per year. The
respondent has paid for the first year and the second year is
due for payment.
11. We hence add the round figure of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Only) to Rs.26,41,900/- (Rupees Twenty-
Six Lakh Forty-One Thousand Nine Hundred Only), which
comes to Rs.29,41,900/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakh Forty-
One Thousand Nine Hundred Only). We round off this
amount to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Only).
12. The appellant shall also be liable to make monthly
payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to
the respondent towards the monthly expenses for the child
(minor son). This payment shall be made by the appellant to
the respondent within the 7th day of every month.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
today that the appellant is willing to pay the amounts
directed by the Court to the respondent provided the
appellant is given time to make the payments.
14. We accordingly direct the appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent in a phased manner as
directed below.
15. (i) Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid by 18.08.2025.
(ii) Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid by 08.09.2025.
(iii) Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid by 27.09.2025, and
(iv) Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid by 03.11.2025.
16. The monthly payment of Rs.20,000/- shall commence
from this month, i.e., August 2025. The appellant shall pay
Rs.20,000/- as directed within the 7th day of every month to
the respondent, starting 07.08.2025.
17. We have taken note of the complaint that the appellant
is not being allowed to visit the child (minor son). We are
however of the considered view that the appellant failing to
maintain the respondent or his son cannot be condoned
while making an order for visitation rights. We make it clear
that the respondent shall allow the appellant to visit the child
(minor son) for two hours on every Sunday from 3:00 P.M. to
5:00 P.M. The visitation shall take place in the presence of
an Advocate. The duration and time shall be as per the
suggestions given by the parties who are present in Court.
The remuneration of Rs.30,000/- to be given to the Advocate
shall be borne by the appellant. The visitation shall
commence subject to the appellant making the entire
payment of Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent within the
timeframes.
18. Needless to say, the appellant shall continue to make
payment of the monthly maintenance amount as directed to
the respondent from 07.08.2025 until the child completes his
education as per the suggestion given on behalf of the
respondent.
19. F.C.A.Nos.93 and 99 of 2024, along with all connected
applications, are disposed of.
Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall
be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 04.08.2025
NDS
