[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Dronamraju Vijaya Lakshmi vs Sri Dronamraju Srikanth Phani Kumar on 1 December, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NOs.87 AND 100 OF 2015
(same cause title in both the appeals)
Date: 01.12.2025
Between
Smt. Dronamraju Vijaya lakshmi, ......Petitioner
vs.
Sri Dronamraju Srikanth Phani Kumar, ....Respondent
This Court made the following:-
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NOs.87 AND 100 OF 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel, representing
Sri M. Kalyana Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant - wife
and Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for
respondent - Husband, in both the appeals.
(For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred
to as 'the wife and the husband')
2. The appellant - wife filed both the appeals against the
respondent - husband. FCA No.87 of 2015 is filed challenging the
order dated 23.02.2015 in O.P.No.904 of 2008, whereas, FCA No.100
of 2015 is against the order dated 23.02.2015 in O.P.No.570 of 2008
passed by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
Nagar.
3. The appellant - wife has filed an application vide O.P.No.570
of 2008 under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act, 1955') against the respondent - husband before the learned
Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. Vide impugned order, dated 23.02.2015,
learned Family Court dismissed the said application.
4. Respondent - Husband has filed an application vide
O.P.No.904 of 2008 under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act, 1955
against the appellant - wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the
ground of cruelty and desertion. Vide impugned order, dated
23.02.2015, learned Family Court allowed the said application
granting decree of divorce.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said orders, the
appellant - wife filed the present appeals against the respondent -
husband.
6. The respondent - husband field O.P.No.904 of 2008 against
the appellant - wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion
contending as follows:-
i. His marriage with the appellant was performed on 22.05.2002
at Ramachandrapuram, near Eluru, as per the Hindu rites and
customs.
ii. It is an arranged marriage.
iii. They were blessed with a female child born on 07.07.2003 out
of their lawful wedlock.
iv. They lead happy marital life for about four months.
v. After the birth of female child, the appellant - wife changed her
attitude, started subjecting him to cruelty.
vi. She demanded him to set up separate family.
vii. She refused to live with his parents at their house.
viii. She, along with her family members, started picking up quarrels
with him and his family members, on petty issues.
ix. She left her matrimonial house and started living with her
parents.
x. She refused to live with his parents.
xi. she insisted his father to execute a document in favour of their
daughter for which he refused.
xii. Brother of the appellant lodged a complaint with Police,
Pedavegi against the respondent who registered the same as a
case in Cr.No.134 of 2004 for the offence under Section 498-A
of IPC.
xiii. In view of the pendency of the said crime, his father has
executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of minor
child in respect of two mulgies situated at Bhimavaram, West
Godavari District.
xiv. In the said registered gift settlement deed, he has mentioned that
the appellant is the guardian of the minor child.
xv. In spite of the said gift settlement deed, the appellant and her
family members ill-treated the respondent and his family
members. The efforts made by him to settle the matter
amicably, were in vain due to the adamant attitude of the
appellant - wife.
xvi. When the Appellant - wife became pregnant again, she
expressed her intention to terminate the pregnancy against his
wish. When there was discussion on the said issue, the brothers
of the appellant - wife abused him in filthy language and tried
to kill him. Then he fled away from the said place leaving his
motor cycle, baggage and computer system etc.
xvii. He has lodged a complaint on 29.07.2007 against brothers of
the appellant with Chandanagar Police.
xviii. Later, she terminated her pregnancy against his wishes.
xix. As the appellant was not inclined to join him, he got issued a
legal notice requesting her to join him, but she did not join.
7. With the above contentions, the respondent - husband sought
to grant decree of divorce.
8. The appellant - wife filed counter denying the said
allegations contending as follows:-
i. Her husband and his family members demanded her and her
family members for additional dowry. When she expressed her
inability, they harassed her both physically and mentally.
ii. The respondent was not happy with the appellant on the ground
that she gave birth to a female child on 07.07.2003 at her
parents' house.
iii. On the advice of the elders in the mediation, she joined him
along with her daughter, but the respondent - husband
continued to harass her and tried to kill her with the help of his
parents. Then she along with her daughter went back to her
parents house.
iv. Respondent and his Advocate also threatened her with dire
consequences that not to proceed with the criminal cases.
However, as per the compromise on 20.12.2004 before Lok
Adalath, the appellant joined the company of her husband.
v. When the appellant became pregnant again, respondent forced
her to terminate the pregnancy as their Siddanthi informed him
that the second child would again be a female child and even
the third issue would also be a female child and when she
refused to terminate pregnancy, on 27.07.2005, he punched on
her stomach and kicked her on abdomen causing bleeding, due
to which her pregnancy was terminated.
vi. The respondent and his family members used to harass her both
mentally and physically and threatened her with dire
consequences if she does not give birth to a male child.
vii. She lodged a complaint with the Police who registered a case in
Cr.No.305 of 2005 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
9. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the said OP
filed by the respondent - husband and she also filed an application
under Section 9 of the Act, vide O.P.No.570 of 2008 seeking
restitution of conjugal life.
10. To prove cruelty and desertion, the respondent - husband
examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6.
11. To disprove the same, the appellant - wife examined herself
as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6.
12. On consideration of evidence both oral and documentary,
vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court, granted
decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 22.05.2002 of the
parties and dismissed the application filed by the appellant - wife
seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
13. Assailing the said orders, the appellant - wife preferred the
present appeals contending that the trail Court erred in passing two
separate orders though conducted common trial in both the OPs. The
trial Court failed to observe that the respondent did not plead and
prove any specific act of cruelty. The trial Court erred in holding that
the parties are living separately since 2003, but missed the fact that
admittedly, they re-united in the year 2004 and lead conjugal life on
which ground the trial Court ought not to have dissolved the marriage.
14. As discussed supra, the respondent - husband has filed the
aforesaid O.P.No.904 of 2008 against the appellant - wife seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Therefore, he has to plead and prove the said cruelty and desertion by
producing relevant oral and documentary evidence. Though he has
made so many allegations with regard to attitude of the appellant -
wife, and that her brothers abused him in filthy language, he has not
examined any witness except examining himself, to prove the same.
However, he has marked Ex.A.1 - copy of the order in M.C.No.45 of
2005 dated 17.04.2008. Ex.A.2 - certified copy of FIR No.305 of
2005 of Cyberabad Police, Ex.A.3 - copy of charge sheet on the file
of 9th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ex.A.4 - copy of
complaint dated 29.07.2005 on the file of SHO, Chandanagar Police
Station, Ex.A.5 - Receipt issued by Police and Ex.A.6 petition filed
under Sections 242 and 294 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.4730 of 2005.
15. To Disprove case of the respondent - husband, the appellant
- wife examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 - postal
acknowledgment, Ex. B.2 - postal cover, Ex.B.3 - photograph, Ex.B.4
- certified copy of application dated 18.12.2004, Ex.B.5 - Certified
copy of household card and Ex.B.6 - Photostat copy of Award passed
by permanent Lok Adalath, Eluru in Cr.No.134 of 2004.
16. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the
marriage of the appellant and respondent was performed on
22.05.2002 and it is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a
female child on 07.07.2003 out of their lawful wedlock. She is now
aged 22 years. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, she
is pursuing her MBBS degree.
17. The aforesaid rival contentions would also reveal that
disputes arose between the appellant and respondent which are serious
in nature. The appellant has lodged a complaint against the respondent
and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC
with the Police, Peddavegi, West Godavari District. The same was
ended in compromise before Lok Adalath, Eluru vide Ex.B.6. Both the
appellant and respondent agreed to live together. According to the
appellant, she joined the company of the respondent. She became
pregnant second time. Thereafter, respondent and his family members
harassed her. According to the respondent, the appellant subjected him
and his family members to cruelty.
18. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has lodged a
complaint against the respondent and his family members in
Cr.No.305 of 2005 with the Police, Cyberabad and after completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against
the respondent and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.305 of
2005. However, the same was ended in acquittal. The appellant - wife
has preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.549 of 2024 challenging the
said judgment. The said appeal is pending. It is also not in dispute that
the respondent has lodged Ex. A. 4 - complaint on 29.07.2005 against
brothers of the appellant alleging that they have attacked him. On
completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge
sheet against the brothers of the appellant.
19. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent vide
M.C.No.45 of 2005 seeking maintenance to her and her daughter. The
same was allowed in part. Both of them filed revisions challenging the
said order. Thereafter, the daughter of the appellant and respondent
filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.57 of 2024
seeking maintenance. The same is also pending.
20. It is also not in dispute that father of the respondent has
executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the daughter of
the appellant and respondent in respect of two mulgies situated at
Bhimvaram, West Godavari District. According to the respondent, his
father has executed the said gift settlement deed under pressure and
coercion due to pendency of the aforesaid Cr.No.134 of 2004
registered under Section 498-A of IPC at the instance of the appellant.
21. As discussed supra, on the complaint lodged by the
appellant, the police have registered a case against respondent and
family members for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, on
completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the
respondent and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.675 of 2014.
Learned trial Court convicted him for the said offence on 20.06.2015.
On the appeal preferred by the respondent, the appellate Court
acquitted him vide judgment dated 20.01.2025. Challenging the same,
she has filed a revision and it is pending.
22. Father of the respondent has filed a suit vide O.S.No.26 of
2012 seeking cancellation of the said gift settlement deed. The same
was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment and
decree, his father preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.219 of 2015. It is
pending. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed an
application vide GWOP No.1645 of 2012 seeking custody of the
minor child. The same was dismissed.
23. Thus, both the appellant and respondent filed the aforesaid
cases against each other. There is strained relation between the
appellant and respondent.
24. As discussed supra, the respondent/husband has filed the
aforesaid O.P.No.904 of 2008 against the appellant - wife seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Therefore, burden lies on the respondent/husband to plead and prove
the same. According to him, the appellant implicated him in the
aforesaid cases and she has filed the aforesaid appeals and thus, she
has subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. On consideration of the
said evidence, vide impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family
Court dissolved the said marriage holding that the parties are
apprehending threat from each other in view of criminal complaints
lodged against each other. In the absence of trust, love and affection
and intention to cohabitate with each other, there is no possibility to
direct the parties to lead conjugal life, as it would emerge further
apprehensions, disputes etc., as the parties are not trusting each other.
Though the appellant contended that in view of their child, she
requires the respondent herein to join her to lead conjugal life, in order
to give better life to the child. But the evidence clearly shows that
there is no intention to the parties to cooperate with each other.
25. Learned Family Court further held that both the parties are
staying away from 2002 onwards. However, the efforts made by the
elders and mediators to re-unit them together became futile. Thus,
with the aforesaid findings, learned Family Court granted decree of
divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties. With the said findings,
learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by the wife seeking
restitution of conjugal life.
26. We have also heard learned counsel for the appellant and
respondent extensively.
27. Learned counsel for the appellant - wife placed reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya 1,
Kumari Rekha vs. Shambhu Saran Paswan 2 to contend that burden
lies on the respondent - husband to plead and prove the cruelty and
desertion by producing evidence and the respondent - husband failed
to discharge the said burden.
28. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent - husband
placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
V.Padmaja vs. Veerla Mohan Rao 3 to contend that both the
appellant and respondents are staying away from 2003 and there is no
possibility of their staying together.
29. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of
this Court that their daughter is pursuing MBBS degree and she was
brought up by the appellant - wife.
2025 INSC 852
2025 INSC 631
2022 (5) ALD 453 (TS) (DB)
30. It is also relevant to note that, on instructions, learned
counsel appearing for appellant contended that even the appellant -
wife is also not interested to join the company of the respondent, since
they are staying away from 2003 onwards. In the light of the same,
we have directed learned counsel for the appellant to get instructions
with regard to permanent alimony and maintenance to the wife and
child. On instructions, learned counsel has submitted that the
respondent has not paid maintenance awarded by the learned
Magistrate as modified by this Court. The aforesaid gift settlement
deed executed by father of the respondent is in dispute in A.S.No.219
of 2015. The respondent spent huge amount towards education of the
child. According to her, apart from the aforesaid two mulgies,
respondent is also having one more mulgi and 40 acres of land. But
she has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent is
having 40 acres of land.
31. Referring to cross-examination of both the P.W.1 and
R.W.1, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
respondent herein failed to prove the cruelty and desertion.
32. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on
instructions, would submit that the respondent is also not interested to
take the appellant to his company.
33. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of
this Court that the parents of the respondent are no more. His brother
impleaded in A.S.No.219 of 2015. It is pending. It is in respect of two
mulgies situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. However,
learned counsel appearing for respondent, on instructions, submitted
that apart from the aforesaid two mulgies, they have one more mulgi.
34. Though the appellant contended that the respondent is also
holding 40 acres of land, she has not produced any document to prove
the same. As discussed supra, it is not in dispute that the appellant
brought up her daughter who is prosecuting MBBS Degree now. It is
also her submission that the respondent did not pay the maintenance
awarded by the learned Magistrate as modified by this Court.
According to the respondent, he has paid the said amount. However, it
is not proper to this Court to get into said controversy, in the present
appeals.
35. Despite Ex.B.6 Award passed by permanent Lok Adalath,
Eluru in Cr.No.134 of 2004 on the compromise by the appellant and
respondent, they did not stay together and lead marital life happily.
Disputes continued between them. Learned Family Court considered
the said aspects in the impugned order and gave a finding that there
was no trust, love and affection between the parties and there was no
intention to cohabit with each other. With the said findings, vide
impugned order dated 23.02.2015, learned Family Court granted
decree of divorce. It is a reasoned order.
36. As discussed supra, appellant - Wife had filed a petition
under Section 9 of the Act, vide O.P.No.570 of 2008 against
respondent -husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Learned
Family Court considering the aforesaid evidence both oral and
documentary, vide order dated 23.02.2015 dismissed the said OP.
Challenging the said order, wife preferred FCA No.100 of 2015.
37. In the light of the said discussion, we are of the considered
view that there is no possibility of re-union of the parties. On
consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated
23.02.2015, learned Family Court in O.P.No.904 of 2015 granted
decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the respondent - husband
with the appellant - wife. Learned Family Court did not award any
amount towards permanent alimony to the appellant - wife and also
maintenance to their daughter. Therefore, we are of the considered
view that the appellant - wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and also
maintenance of her daughter.
38. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 23.02.2015 passed in O.P.No.904 of 2008 by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, granting decree of
divorce dissolving the marriage of the respondent - husband with the
appellant - wife is confirmed, and F.C.A.No.87 of 2015 is disposed of
directing the respondent - husband to pay an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the appellant - wife
towards permanent alimony and maintenance of their daughter. He
shall pay the said amount within three (3) months from today. The
said amount includes the maintenance awarded by the learned
Magistrate as modified by this Court in the aforesaid two applications
filed by the appellant and their daughter under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
seeking maintenance. The said amount also includes the claim of the
appellant and her daughter with regard to her interest in the property
covered by the aforesaid gift settlement deed executed by father of the
respondent in favour of the daughter of the appellant and the
respondent in respect of two mulgies at Bhimavaram, subject matter
of O.S.No.26 of 2012 and A.S.No.219 of 2015. The aforesaid amount
of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) is towards full and final
settlement of the appellant and her daughter including permanent
alimony and maintenance respectively. In view of the same, appellant
and their daughter shall not make any further claim against the
respondent over the properties of the respondent - 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 appellant - wife and her daughter
to take steps against her husband in accordance with law.
39. Thus, F.C.A.No.87 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly.
FCA No.100 of 2015 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
______________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Date: 01.12.2025.
Vvr
