Telangana High Court
Karakkaya Deepak vs K Maheswari on 6 November, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
FAMILY COURT APPEAL Nos.150 and 129 of 2014 and 246 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)
Heard Mr.Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab, learned counsel
for the appellant/husband and Mr.Shaikh Mohammed Rizwan
Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent/wife.
2. In all the three appeals, appellant is the husband and
respondent is the wife. The marriage of the appellant with the
respondent was performed on 04.11.2011 as per Hindu Rites
and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. It is the specific
contention of the appellant/husband that immediately after the
marriage, respondent joined his company, but not accepted to
have consummation of marriage on the very first night. On the
intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the same was
performed later on. Further, without the knowledge of the
appellant, respondent got aborted the pregnancy. Respondent
used to harass the appellant without cooperating him and not
attending the house hold works. She used to quarrel on each
and every petty matter without having any reason.
3. Respondent left the house of the appellant in his absence
to her parents' house on 30.05.2012 along with all her
belongings without informing the appellant. Though he visited
the respondent parents' house, she used to threaten him that he
shall not visit her, if he do so, she will initiate criminal
proceedings against him. Having vexed with the behavior and
attitude of the respondent, appellant got issued a legal notice
dated 07.08.2012 calling upon her to join his company.
However, on 18.08.2012 respondent informed the appellant
over phone that he is at liberty to initiate any proceedings and
she is ready to face the consequences.
4. Thus, according to the appellant, respondent subject him
to cruelty and deserted him. With the said contentions, he has
filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.531 of 2012 on the file of learned the
Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, against the
respondent/wife seeking judicial separation.
5. However, respondent/wife filed counter denying the said
allegations and stated that she never harassed the appellant. In
fact, the appellant himself ill-treated her. She has further
contended that the appellant's parents, uncle and sister, who
did not like the consummation of the marriage without giving
more lanchanalu, have warned the parents of the respondent
that they will see how the respondent will lead happy marital
life with the appellant in their house. Further, they did not
allow her to sleep with the appellant by occupying the bed and
the in-laws of the respondent gone to the extent of not
allowing her to have access to the appellant and to talk with
him and also not to serve the food. They demanded an amount
of Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional dowry. Further, she has
filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 against the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal
rights vide F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014 on the file of learned the
Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.
6. Perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant has
filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 vide F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 on the file of learned
the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, against the
respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground
of cruelty.
7. Vide common order dated 03.07.2014, learned Family
Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.531 of 2012 filed by the appellant
seeking judicial separation and allowed F.C.O.P.No.108 of
2014 filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal
rights. Vide order dated 16.07.2017, learned Family Court
dismissed F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 filed by the appellant
seeking dissolution of marriage. Feeling aggrieved by the said
orders, appellant filed the present three appeals.
8. As discussed supra, the marriage of the appellant and
respondent was performed on 04.11.2011. They stayed
together for a short period. They are not staying together from
the year 2012 onwards i.e., since last 13 years.
9. Perusal of the record also would reveal that the
respondent/wife has lodged a complaint against the
respondent/husband for the offence under Section 498A of
IPC. The same was ended in acquittal. Respondent/wife
preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.70 of 2022 and the same is
pending on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. She has filed an application under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. The said application was allowed in-part,
a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month was awarded. Feeling
aggrieved by the said orders, both the appellant and respondent
have preferred appeals vide Crl.A.Nos.89 and 104 of 2023 and
the same are pending. In an appeal, the said amount was
reduced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. According
to the learned counsel for the respondent/wife,
appellant/husband is not paying the said amount since last five
years. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is strained
relation between the appellant and respondent. They stayed
together for a short period.
10. There is no dispute that neither the learned Family Court
nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of
irretrievable break-down of marriage. Further, the said aspect
can be considered along with the other aspects while deciding
an application filed seeking divorce or in an appeal. It is also
not in dispute that the cruelty is not defined in any statute.
However, we have to consider the evidence available, both
oral and documentary and the allegations made by the husband
to come to a conclusion as to whether the same amounts to
cruelty. In the present case, appellant/husband failed to plead
and prove the cruelty. On consideration of the said facts only
learned Family Court dismissed the F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014
filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the
ground of cruelty.
11. In the light of the aforesaid factual scenario, learned
counsel for the respondent/wife, on instructions, would submit
that respondent/wife is also not interested to join the company
of the appellant/husband. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the appellant/husband, on instructions, would submit that
the appellant is also not interested to take his wife to his
society and lead marital life.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, on
instructions, would further submit that an amount of Rs.20.00
lakhs may be awarded to the respondent towards permanent
alimony. Initially, appellant/husband agreed to pay an amount
of Rs.6.00 lakhs. Thereafter, respondent/wife reduced the said
amount to Rs.15.00 lakhs and appellant/husband offered an
amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs.
13. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, though the
marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed
on 04.11.2011, they have stayed together for a short period
i.e., from 04.11.2011 to 30.05.2012. The appellant/husband is
aged about 37 years and respondent/wife is aged about 33
years at present. It is the specific contention of the
respondent/wife is that though the said amount of Rs.6,000/-
was awarded by the learned Magistrate in DVC is reduced to
Rs.3,000/- per month, appellant/husband is not paying the said
amount since last five years. The aforesaid three criminal
appeals i.e., Crl.A.Nos.70 of 2022 and 89 and 104 of 2023 are
also pending.
14. In the light of the same, we are of the view that there is
no possibility of reunion of parties. Therefore, we are inclined
to grant decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the
appellant and respondent performed on 04.11.2011 on the
condition of appellant/husband paying an amount of Rs.10.00
lakhs to the respondent/wife towards permanent alimony.
15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion,
a) F.C.A.No.246 of 2019 is allowed by setting aside the
order dated 16.07.2019 passed in F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 by
learned the Judge, Additional Family Court, Secunderabad.
F.C.O.P.No.1437 of 2014 is allowed granting decree of
divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant and
respondent performed on 04.11.2011 on the condition of
appellant/husband paying an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the
respondent/wife towards permanent alimony.
b) F.C.A.No.129 of 2014 is disposed of by setting aside
the order dated 03.07.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.531 of 2012 passed
by learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.
c) Further, F.C.A.No.150 of 2014 is allowed by setting
aside the order dated 03.07.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014
passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.
F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2014 is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
__________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
6th NOVEMBER, 2025.
YNK
