Telangana High Court
Smt. D. Subhashini , Atluri Subhashini vs Sri D. Srinivas on 17 November, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.51 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant - wife and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel
representing Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the respondent -
husband.
2. This Family Court Appeal is preferred by the appellant
challenging the order dated 31.12.2013 in FCOP No.1099 of 2010
passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, granting
decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties held
on 25.02.2007 and by cancelling the marriage certificate registered
with the Registrar, SRO Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant is the wife and the respondent herein is the
husband. The respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP
No.1099 of 2010 under Section - 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu
KL,J & VRKR,J
Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant - wife, seeking decree of
divorce on the following grounds:
i. Their marriage was performed on 25.02.2007 as per Hindu rites
and customs.
ii. At the time of marriage, the respondent did not take any dowry.
iii. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on
04.07.2008, namely Master Hemang.
iv. The appellant used to ill-treat the respondent in the presence of
his friends.
v. The appellant is rude and adamant towards the respondent.
vi. The appellant is suspicious in nature and used to suspect the
respondent whenever he comes late on account of his job;
vii. The appellant is in the habit of going to her parents' house
frequently without informing the respondent.
viii. Despite bringing all the said aspects to the notice of parents of
the appellant, the same went in vain.
ix. The appellant left the company of the respondent on 12.01.2008
when he was in Malta. Since then, both the parties are residing
separately without any relationship as wife and husband for
more than two (02) years.
KL,J & VRKR,J
x. When the respondent tried to contact her on 24.09.2008 (which
was amended from 24.08.2008), she having seen the number
did not pick up the phone continuously. Finally when he went to
the appellant house, instead of allowing him to come inside,
stated that the appellant went out and nobody were in the house.
4. The appellant herein filed counter denying the claim of the
respondent on the following grounds:
i. During the marriage proposals itself, the respondent and his
parents demanded her parents regarding dowry and gold
ornaments etc.
ii. The respondent is very selfish and enjoys for himself and never
used to care for the minimum comforts of the appellant.
iii. The respondent never showed love and affection towards the
appellant.
iv. The appellant adjusted herself realizing that he would mend one
day or the other.
v. The respondent and his parents harassed the appellant, both
physically and mentally soon after the marriage.
vi. The respondent used to leave to the office at 8.00 A.M. and
return home any time between 12.00 A.M. and 3.00 A.M. in the
KL,J & VRKR,J
early morning every day. He never used to be at Home on
weekends.
5. The appellant herein also filed additional counter in the said
FCOP contending that the date 24.08.2008 sought to be amended as
24.09.2008 is nothing but an afterthought when she filed the petitions
to reopen the case and to receive the documents viz., e-mails dated
12.08.2008 and 28.08.2008 in evidence and recall the respondent
herein for further cross-examination as he was in Malta in the month
of August, 2008.
6. In order to prove the case of the respondent herein, he
himself examined as PW.1 and also examined his father and friend as
PWs.2 and 3 respectively on his behalf, and marked Exs.P1 to P9,
whereas the appellant herself examined as RW1 and got examined her
maternal grandfather and maternal uncle as RWs.2 and 3 on her behalf
and also marked Exs.B1 to B5.
7. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the
evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 31.12.2013,
learned Judge, Family Court allowed the said O.P. granting decree of
KL,J & VRKR,J
divorce dissolving the marriage held on 25.02.2007 between the
parties on the following grounds:
i. The appellant herein is living away from the respondent from
12.01.2008;
ii. Because of long gap between the parties living away from each
other, there is no possibility for them to live together, even if
the divorce is not granted, there is no possibility for their
reunion.
iii. Because of all the incidents stated by the respondent in his
pleadings, evidence and through witnesses, he proved the
cruelty of the appellant towards him as she is living away from
him from 12.01.2008. Thus, the respondent is also entitled for
decree of divorce on the ground of desertion also.
iv. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for decree of divorce on
the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
8. Challenging the said decree of divorce, the appellant - wife
filed the present appeal.
9. Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.
KL,J & VRKR,J
V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the respondent, made their
submissions extensively.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the
principle laid down in i) Praveen Mehta v. Indrajit Mehta1;
Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur2; Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi3
and Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Susha Kohli 4.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the
principle laid down in K. Sekhar Rao v. K. Rekha 5.
12. The aforesaid rival submissions would make it clear that
there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the appellant with
the respondent on 25.02.2007 and that it is an arranged marriage as
per Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a male child on
04.07.2008 out of their lawful wedlock. Perusal of contents of the
petition in FCOP No.1099 of 2010 and his depositions would reveal
that there was dispute with regard to profile sent by him to M/s.
Vanaja Rao Quick Marriages Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as
'Marriage Bureau') through which marriage of the parties was fixed.
. (2002) 5 SCC 706
. (2010) 14 SCC 301
. (2010) 4 SCC 476
. (2004) 7 SCC 747
. 2025 (2) ALT 394 (DB) (TS)
KL,J & VRKR,J
13. It is the specific contention of the appellant herein that the
respondent mentioned as Chartered Accountant (CA) and pursuing
MBA in the said profile sent by him to the aforesaid Marriage Bureau.
However, the respondent denied the said fact during cross-
examination. However, he has admitted at the time of alliance he was
working in HSBC as Assistant Manager. He does not remember
whether he mentioned in his profile that his income is Rs.3.00 lakhs
per annum. He has further admitted that he never possessed C.A.
Certificate and not stated that MBA Course at any point of time. It is
also not in dispute that the respondent studied B.Com., and working as
Assistant Manager in HSBC. The appellant herein completed her
MBA and was working in M/s. Alliance Global Services at the time of
marriage. Her salary was Rs.30,000/- per month.
14. It is the specific contention of the respondent - husband that
he is a rationalist having modern thoughts. He is against dowry
system. To adhere the said principle, he married the appellant without
taking dowry, though the system of dowry is prevailing in their caste
and community.
15. As discussed above, the respondent - husband had filed the
aforesaid FCOP under Section - 13 (1) (ia) (1b) of the Hindu Marriage
KL,J & VRKR,J
Act, 1955 against the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the
grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. To prove the said cruelty and
desertion, he himself examined as PW.1, his mother as PW.2 and
friend as PW.3. He has filed Exs.P1 to P9 documents. To disprove
the same, the appellant herein examined herself as RW.1, her maternal
grandfather as RW.2 and maternal uncle as RW.3. She has filed
Exs.B1 to B6 documents.
16. The respondent narrated the cruel acts and desertion in the
aforesaid FCOP. According to him, the appellant deserted him on
12.01.2008. Child was born on 04.07.2008. The cradle ceremony was
performed on 24.07.2008. It is the specific contention of the
respondent that the parents of the appellant informed that they are
celebrating naming ceremony of the boy on 24.07.2008. He and his
parents and other family members totaling 10 went and attended the
naming function. He took several articles, dresses and also presented
a gold chain and infant playing games etc. The parents of the
appellant have not given minimum respect to them and treated them as
of far relatives and not attended them properly and insulted them. All
the efforts made by him to get back the appellant back for restoration
KL,J & VRKR,J
of conjugal rights and to lead family life, but the same became in vain.
Thus, the appellant - wife left his company on 12.01.2008 with all her
belongings when he went to Malta only with an intention to put an end
to the marital life. After naming ceremony of the boy on 24.07.2008,
there is no relation between the appellant and the respondent as wife
and husband as they are residing separately. On 24.07.2008, he tried
to contact the appellant and seeing the number, the appellant did not
pick up his phone call made by the respondent. Thus, she has not
allowed the respondent to visit his child. He left to Bangalore in the
month of January, 2009 for proper prospects. Even then, the appellant
did not turn up and join his company.
17. According to the respondent - husband, the appellant - wife
is suffering from psychiatric problem. But, during cross-examination,
he has admitted that he has not taken his wife to any psychiatrist on
the ground that she is psychic. According to him, his wife refused
saying that she does not have any problem.
18. At the time of marriage alliance, both of them exchanged
their views. After the marriage, they went to Kerala for honeymoon.
He is in the habit of taking alcohol drinks and smoking. He was only
KL,J & VRKR,J
occasional smoker. He has admitted the said facts during cross-
examination.
19. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the
respondent is a chain smoker and alcoholic and he used to drink every
day. He used to come home late in the nights or in the early morning
in a drunken condition in the weekends and normal in the week days.
The said attitude of the respondent - husband created differences
between them. During cross-examination, the appellant - wife
admitted that she stated that at the time of marriage talks, her husband
stated that he has no bad habits, like taking alcohol and smoking etc.
She observed her husband consuming alcohol and chain smoking even
during honeymoon. Till her last stay with her husband i.e., before
going to her parents' house, she found her husband consuming alcohol
and smoking. One of the differences between her and her husband is
the said two habits. He used to come late in the nights or in the early
morning in a drunken condition in the weekends and normal in the
week days. During cross-examination she has further admitted that
even during normal days, he comes late in the night. The same is also
one of the reasons for differences for living separately. In spite of her
request and advice, her husband has not stopped the said habits.
KL,J & VRKR,J
20. The aforesaid evidence of both PW.1 - husband and RW.1 -
wife would reveal that there are disputes between them right from the
date of marriage, more particularly when they went to Kerala for
honeymoon.
21. Perusal of deposition of PW.1 and RW.1 also would reveal
that the appellant - wife made serious allegations against her husband
that he used to maintain illicit relation with women/his colleagues.
During cross-examination of PW.1 - husband, she made a suggestion
to PW.1 that a lady voice came in between their conversation saying
"Hi Vasu Come on my Darling". When she has asked about the same
as to who is that lady came in between them, he stated that she is
friend. However, PW.1 denied that there was no such conversation
between him and the lady. He has also denied a suggestion that the
appellant has not attributed intimacy to him with other ladies
attributing extra marital life. However, he has not mentioned the said
facts in his petition or in his evidence that his wife attributed the extra
marital life and illicit contacts with ladies by means.
22. However, during cross-examination, RW.1 admitted that
she does not think so, her husband moves with girl friends. She
KL,J & VRKR,J
observed calling her husband by a lady. One of the instances, she has
also seen message over cell phone. The same was also a cause for
strained relation between the parties.
23. Perusal of record would also reveal that the respondent -
husband made serious allegations against the appellant - wife that she
has attempted to commit suicide, threatened him and his parents.
During cross-examination, he has admitted that he was intending to
examine his mother as a witness on his behalf. When the appellant
used to threaten that she would commit suicide, he informed the same
to her parents, but he has not given any complaint to the police.
24. RW.1 in her examination-in-chief specifically stated that
she never attributed any allegation against the respondent herein that
he has vices and intimacy with ladies and that he is having extra
marital affairs. One of the occasions was that the respondent called
her over phone from his office and a lady voice coming up in between
saying that "Hey Vasu, come on, my darling" with a vamp like voice
which was very very irritable to hear. When she asked him as to who
is she and why the voice has come in between, he stated that his friend
wanted to see his reaction.
KL,J & VRKR,J
25. She further stated that subsequently on another occasion
when her husband on one week end when he came late in the night he
went to sleep as soon as he came home. She went to switch off the
light, his mobile was blinking with the message "Hi Aparna, I love
you my dear and I am there to support you". Such a message was sent
by him to her. However, during cross-examination, she has admitted
that she does not think so that her husband moves with girl friends.
26. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the
appellant left his company on 12.01.2008 when he went to Malta by
taking her all belongings including jewellery etc., with an intention to
put an end to the marital life. Thus, she has deserted him on
12.01.2008. However, it is the contention of the wife that she left to
her parents' house on 12.01.2008 while she was carrying. She gave
birth to a male child on 04.07.2008. Naming ceremony was held on
23.07.2008. According to the husband, he attended the said ceremony,
whereas according to the wife, he did not attend the ceremony.
According to the wife, her husband and his parents made several nasty
comments against her parents stating that the ceremony was
performed in below their standards. According to her, when her
husband's grandfather died, her parents went and consoled his mother
KL,J & VRKR,J
and other family members. She could not attend as she was very sick,
that too with small child, who had to be taken care of. While the baby
boy was in 5th month, on 22.11.2008, her uncle and her brother
dropped her at her husband's place, though the respondent was very
much present in the house, he did not even turn up and wish her uncle
and brother. The respondent started behaving in a very strange
manner and he used to sleep in another room and never used to talk
with her while at home. Her mother-in-law as usual so rude and nasty
in her approach towards her.
27. However, during cross-examination, RW.2 - wife admitted
that after 12.01.2008, she has not come back to her husband. Her
husband and her in-laws called her parents and told them to keep her
till 5th month after delivery. She has not joined her husband at any
point of time and the related date i.e., 22.11.2008 is created and the
incidents stated in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of her chief-examination
affidavit are not correct. She joined the matrimonial house on
22.11.2008 as she was dropped by her uncle, Mr. Eswar Rao (RW.3)
and her brother, Mr. Benerjee. However, she has admitted in her
KL,J & VRKR,J
cross-examination that she has not mentioned the name of Mr. Eswar
Rao and Mr. Benerjee in her chief-examination affidavit.
28. During cross-examination, she has further admitted that she
is residing separately from her husband. She has not given any notice
to her husband demanding restitution of conjugal rights. According to
the appellant, her parents or elders tried for conciliation/mediation, but
she has not examined any of the mediators who conducted conciliation
and mediation.
29. Though the child was born on 04.07.2008, he was with the
appellant. The respondent did not make any effort to take the custody
of the minor boy or seeking visitation rights. She has also admitted
the said fact during cross-examination. However she has objection to
give her son to her husband. Her intention is to live together and the
boy should be brought up by both of them. Her husband never paid
any maintenance either to her or to her child.
30. It is also apt to note that during cross-examination, the
appellant has categorically admitted that there are differences right
from marriage talks till their separation. Though the differences are
there, she adjusted and stayed with her husband. She has further
KL,J & VRKR,J
admitted that her educational certificates are with her only. Silver
plates, clothes, wardrobe etc. are in the custody of her in-laws and
nowhere in her counter or in her chief-examination stated about the
same. She further admitted that she has not given any notice for
restitution of conjugal rights. However, she has clarified that she has
not filed with a fond hope that her husband may realize and may come
to lead marital life.
31. It is also apt to note that the respondent - husband
contended that he went to her in-laws house on 24.07.2008, but he has
not filed any document in proof of the same and he has not examined
any of the witness.
32. It is also relevant to note that the during cross-examination
of PW.1, when the appellant made a suggestion to him that on
02.11.2007 in the early hours about 5.00 A.M. he came home in
drunken condition and on her enquiry he has stated that he slept in
after dropping lady colleague at their home at 11 P.M. of the previous
night, he denied the same.
33. It is also the specific allegation of the appellant - wife that
she has consulted the Gynecologist, who confirmed her pregnancy and
KL,J & VRKR,J
even her husband came home early and informed the same, but he has
not expressed any feeling. She has also made an allegation against her
father-in-law that he used to behave in indecent manner. Her mother-
in-law used to insist her not to close the door of the bed room while
she was feeding the boy and observing the same by her father-in-law,
by coming into the said room and there is nothing wrong even if the
father-in-law enters into the bed room while the appellant feeding the
boy.
34. During cross-examination, a suggestion was given to the
respondent - husband that the appellant - wife is interested to join his
company to discharge her marital obligation, he has answered that
after going through such agony and mental torture put by his wife
which clearly shows that there is no compatibility as his wife had
made allegations against him. He has further admitted that he has not
paid any maintenance to his son for his day-to-day expenses and for
his upbringing.
35. According to the wife, there is exchange of e-mails
between her and her husband i.e., Exs.B3, 5 and 6. He has admitted
that his e-mail ID is [email protected]. His earlier e-mail
KL,J & VRKR,J
ID is [email protected]. He has denied sending e-mail
to his wife on 03.01.2010 i.e., on Sunday. However, the said e-mails
were shown to him. He has also admitted that he has not issued any
notice to her saying that she left his company without informing him.
Though the appellant - wife filed the said e-mails, to contend that she
brought up the boy, lead marital life, she could not prove anything
from the said e-mails.
36. It is also the specific contention of the appellant - wife that
the respondent and his parents imposed certain conditions i.e., i) if
she wants to come to the matrimonial house, she has to live as per his
parents dictates; ii) she will not allow to take her to Bangalore or any
other his work place; iii) she shall bring Rs.4.00 lakhs so that she can
resign her job and live with interest amount accrued over the said
amount; iv) she should bring some more jewelry and she should get
immovable property documents registered in her name. However, the
respondent - husband denied the said suggestion.
37. PW.2, mother of the respondent - husband, deposed about
the disputes between her son and daughter-in-law. However, she has
admitted about the marriage and birth of the child on 04.07.2008.
KL,J & VRKR,J
According to her, her daughter-in-law left her son under the pretext of
pregnancy on 12.01.2008 only with an intention to put an end to the
marital life and with that intention only she has taken all her
belongings when her son was out of Country and went to Malta.
However, during cross-examination, she has admitted that marriage
alliance of her son and daughter-in-law was arranged through the said
Marriage Bureau. His son was working as Assistant Manager in
HSBC Bank at the time of marriage. His profile was kept in the said
Marriage Bureau. The said Marriage Bureau arranged the said
alliance. However, she has denied about mentioning of her son's
qualification as C.A., B.Com., M.B.A., in the said profile. She has
further admitted that after the marriage of her son, the marriage of her
brother-in-law's daughter was performed. Her son and her daughter-
in-law did not attend the said marriage as her daughter-in-law refused
to attend the marriage. She further admitted that after 12.01.2008,
there were occasions that she used to talk to her daughter-in-law over
telephone, and on two occasions she had spoken to her daughter-in-
law over telephone. Despite her request, her daughter-in-law did not
attend the 11th day ceremony of her deceased mother. She further
admitted that they got married the appellant to PW.1 as she is
KL,J & VRKR,J
educated and doing job. To a suggestion that the appellant is ready to
join her son and lead marital life, she answered that it is the wish of
her son.
38. The respondent examined his friend as PW.3 to show that
his wife's attitude towards his friends is not normal. She was groomy.
When the respondent asked to serve a cup of tea to them, his wife
loudly and reluctantly stated that she is not a waitress to serve as suits
in odd hours and sarcastically and ironically stated that it is not the tea
time for them and to take other drink as they do regular. On hearing
the same, PW.1 not only felt shameful but also felt insulted and the
said incident came to be known by everybody in their friends circle.
PW.1 informed PW.3 that he is not happy with family life.
39. The appellant herein - wife examined her maternal
grandfather as RW.2 to prove that RW.1 is very soft spoken,
submissive and got respect to the elders, more particularly towards her
in-laws. RW.1 tried and made so many efforts to join her husband to
lead marital life with the respondent herein. He has further deposed
that marital life of his granddaughter with the respondent is very
important, he and his brother, Mr. K. Prasad went to the respondent's
KL,J & VRKR,J
house to mediate the matter in the month of December, 2009. They
tried to convince the respondent's parents and requested them to take
their daughter-in-law to marital house. The respondent's maternal
grandfather, Mr. Purushotam Rao informed him to convince his
granddaughter to go for the divorce and perform another marriage to
her and they will go for another marriage to their son. Thus, the
respondent herein is not at all interested to lead marital life with the
appellant. However, the appellant did not examine the said K. Prasad
or Mr. Purushotam Rao to prove the same.
40. During cross-examination, RW.2 categorically admitted
that RW.1 informed him about the behavior of PW.1 and that PW.1
comes late in the nights and drinks. He does not know the reasons for
differences between PW.1 and RW.1, and drinking is the reason for
the same. RW.1 informed him that PW.1 and his parents insisted to
get the property documents which are in the name of RW.1 and also
money. RW.1 is residing separately as she was sent out by PW.1 and
his family. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the said fact in
his chief-examination affidavit. He cannot give the date of mediation.
RW.1 left the place of matrimonial home till date. There is no
relationship of husband and wife between them. He further admitted
KL,J & VRKR,J
that the differences between PW.1 and RW.1 are not adjustable and
that due to the said differences, they are living separately. He does
not know with regard to the efforts made by RW.1 to join her marital
life. He does not know whether any mediation was taken place prior
to his mediation in the month of December, 2009 or subsequently. He
does not know whether RW.1 went to her in-laws place taking the
new born boy and also his daughter and son-in-law.
41. The appellant also examined her maternal uncle as RW.3,
who deposed that on 22.11.2008 he and brother of the appellant, Mr.
Benerjee dropped the appellant in the house of respondent when the
baby boy was five months old. The respondent was very much
present in the house and he did not turn up and wished them. In the
month of April, 2009, he and his wife went to the respondent's house
to invite him and his parents for his daughter's marriage. The parents
of the respondent informed that they and their son are not interested to
continue the marital relationship with the appellant and that their son
is going to file a divorce petition.
42. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that
PW.1 and RW.1 are residing separately. He does not know since how
KL,J & VRKR,J
long they are residing separately. On 04.07.2008, RW.1 was blessed
with a male child. He cannot identify PW.1 presently. He has seen
PW.1 prior and after marriage. He has no proof to show that he invited
PW.1 and his parents to his daughter's marriage. He is giving
evidence at the request of RW.1 and RW.1 informed certain incidents
to him and RW.1 has not stated to him any differences between PW.1
and her. He has seen PW.1 only once before marriage and once after
the marriage and he did not talk to him at any point of time. RW.1
informed him that the parents of PW.1 imposed conditions, like to get
the property, to bring money and to give her salary etc. Except going
to PW.1's house for giving marriage invitation of his daughter, he did
not make any effort to convince them for their re-union.
43. The aforesaid evidence would reveal that there are
differences between PW.1 and RW.1 right from the initial stage of
marriage. According to the appellant - wife, the respondent - husband
is a chain smoker and used to consume alcohol daily. She came to
know the said facts during her honeymoon in Kerala. Despite her
advice, he has not stopped the same. It is also apt to note that PW.1
during cross-examination admitted that he is a smoker and he used to
KL,J & VRKR,J
consume alcohol. The said habits also created differences between the
wife and husband.
44. RW.1 suspected that PW.1 has illicit relation with ladies.
She has narrated the aforesaid two incidents. However, during cross-
examination she has admitted that she does not think so that PW.1
maintained relations with ladies. However, she has suspicion over
PW.1. The same was also created differences between them.
45. As discussed above, the appellant - wife also made a
specific allegation that the respondent - husband made to believe her
that he did C.A., and also MBA. He has mentioned the same in his
profile sent to the aforesaid Marriage Bureau. To prove the same, she
has filed Ex.B2 profile of the husband given to the Marriage Bureau.
Perusal of Ex.B2 profile would reveal that the respondent has
mentioned his qualification as C.A., B.Com., and M.B.A., (pursuing
in Kranthi Degree College, Symbiosis, Vijayawada, Pune, 1998 III
Semister). Designation as Assistant Manager, Operations, Income as
Rs.3.00 lakhs PA.
46. During cross-examination, PW.1 and PW.2 have admitted
that they have sent the profile of PW.1 to the aforesaid Marriage
KL,J & VRKR,J
Bureau. In fact, PW.1 was only a graduate at the time of marriage and
he was working as Assistant Manager in HSBC, Hyderabad. The said
fact also created difference between the wife and husband.
47. Perusal of evidence also would reveal that the appellant -
wife has made specific allegation against PW.1 and his parents that
they have harassed her in the manner stated above. The respondent -
husband also made serious allegations against his wife contending that
she has psychic problem. However, he has not taken her to any
psychiatrist and he has not proved the same.
48. It is also the contention of the appellant - wife that the
respondent used to come home during late hours and sometimes early
hours in drunken conditions. The same also created difference
between them.
49. Perusal of the aforesaid evidence would reveal that both the
appellant and the respondent are staying separately with effect from
12.01.2008. Even assuming for a moment that PW.1 and his parents
attended the cradle ceremony of the boy, the same was on 24.07.2008.
Thereafter they have not met. Though the appellant - wife contended
that she went to her husband's house on 22.11.2008, she has not
KL,J & VRKR,J
proved the same. Even the same is taken as true, thereafter she left the
house and, thus, from November, 2008 onwards they are staying
separately and the same was also admitted by them. RW.2, maternal
grandfather of the wife also admitted the said fact. PW.1 and his
mother also deposed on the same lines. Even then, nothing was
elicited from them during cross-examination.
50. In K. Sekhar Rao5 relied upon by learned counsel for the
respondent, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering several
judgments of the Apex Court and on examination of the facts of the
said case where both the spouses are staying separately since last 16
years and that there was no possibility of re-union of the parties,
granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties.
51. Once the parties have separated and the separation has
continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented
a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has
broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an
endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the
breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The
consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage
KL,J & VRKR,J
which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of
greater misery for the parties.
52. Human mind is extremely complex and human
behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no
bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one
definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from
person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity,
educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social
status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their
value system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh 6.
53. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different
challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human
relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and
frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of
"cruelty" or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of
relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other,
or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court
. (2007) 4 SCC 511
KL,J & VRKR,J
must take into consideration as observed by the Apex Court in
Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita 7.
54. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely
affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional
or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the
type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social
conditions and their culture and human values which they attach
importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits as held by
the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 8.
55. The appellant and the respondent were at loggerheads
right from the inception of their marriage. The marriage never took
off. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage for the last twelve
years, the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The
marriage is virtually shattered and has become a dead wood. The
allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other
establish that there is no further chance of a rapprochement. The
appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances of cruelty meted
. 2023 AIR (SC 2144
. (2006) 4 SCC 558
KL,J & VRKR,J
out on him by the respondent as held by the Apex Court in Prabin
Gopal v. Meghna 9.
56. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed
the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible.
Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together
forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other
option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the
High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting
decree for divorce as held by the Apex Court in Durga Prasanna
Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy10.
57. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or
conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to
consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband,
assess the same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to
cruelty or not.
58. Perusal of record would reveal that the respondent -
husband had filed the aforesaid petition vide FCOP.No.1099 of 2010
in the year 2010. It was allowed on 31.12.2013. Assailing the said
. MANU/KE/1505/2021
(2005) 7 SCC 353
KL,J & VRKR,J
order, appellant - wife preferred the present Appeal in the year 2015.
The parties are staying separately from 2008 i.e., since last 17 years.
59. In Naveen Kohli8, the Apex Court held as follows:
"72. Once the parties have separated and the
separation has continued for a sufficient length of
time and one of them has presented a petition for
divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage
has broken down. The court, no doubt, should
seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the
parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is
irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld.
The consequences of preservation in law of the
unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be
effective are bound to be a source of greater
misery for the parties.
73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is
inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under
the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce
courts are presented concrete instances of human
behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into
disrepute.
74. We have been principally impressed by the
consideration that once the marriage has broken
down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the
law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be
KL,J & VRKR,J
harmful to society and injurious to the interests of
the parties. Where there has been a long period of
continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised
that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The
marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a
legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in
such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage;
on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties.
75. Public interest demands not only that the
married status should, as far as possible, as long as
possible, and whenever possible, be maintained,
but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the
hope of salvage, public interest lies in the
recognition of that fact.
76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a
spouse can be compelled to resume life with the
consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the
parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has
ceased to exist."
60. We have also made efforts for reconciliation of the parties.
Both the learned counsel appearing on either side also made their
efforts. On instructions, they have submitted that there is no
possibility of re-union of the parties.
KL,J & VRKR,J
61. As discussed above, the parties are staying separately from
2008 onwards i.e., since last 17 years. The boy is 17 years now. It is
not in dispute that the appellant - wife brought up the boy. The
respondent - husband never tried to seek custody of boy and also for
visitation rights. He has admitted that he has not maintained his son
and he has not paid any amount towards his maintenance and that his
wife brought up the boy.
62. It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court
can dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. However, it can be considered as an aspect along with other
aspects while deciding the present Appeal. In the present case, the
parties are staying separately since last 17 years. There is no
possibility of their re-union. During the period of said separation
only, the respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP. On
consideration of the said evidence, the trial Court allowed the said
FCOP filed by the respondent - husband vide impugned order dated
31.12.2013 dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent dated 25.02.2007 by cancelling their marriage certificate
registered with the Registrar, SRO of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
KL,J & VRKR,J
63. It is apt to note that as on the date of marriage, the
respondent - husband used to work as an Assistant Manager in HSBC.
His father used to work as Manager in Balco Company and he has
taken voluntary retirement.
64. It is also not in dispute that the appellant - wife worked for
some time. She has not filed any complaint against her husband and
in-laws for the offences under Section - 498A of IPC and under the
provisions of Domestic Violence Act. She has not filed any
application under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.
Though the appellant left the company of the respondent - husband in
the year 2008, she has not filed any application under Section - 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against
her husband. Even, the respondent has not filed any such application.
However, he has categorically admitted that he was not interested to
join the company of his wife.
65. As stated above, the appellant brought up her son till date,
for which the respondent herein did not pay any amount. The
respondent did not plead and prove that the appellant - wife has
worked and she is in a position to maintain herself. In the light of the
KL,J & VRKR,J
same, we are of the considered opinion that learned Family Court
rightly granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the
appellant with the respondent and there is no error in it. However,
learned Family Court erred in not granting permanent alimony to the
appellant considering the fact that she brought up the boy. Therefore,
we are of the opinion that the appellant - wife herein is entitled for an
amount of Rs.30,00,000- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) towards
permanent alimony and the respondent - husband liable to pay the
same.
66. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 31.12.2013 in FCOP No.1099 of 2010 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Hyderabad, granting decree of divorce dissolving the
marriage of the appellant with the respondent is confirmed, and we are
of the opinion that the appellant - wife is entitled for an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) towards permanent
alimony from the respondent - husband. The same is towards full and
final settlement of the claims of appellant - wife and the minor son.
The respondent shall pay the said amount within two (02) months
KL,J & VRKR,J
from today, failing which the appellant - wife is entitled to take steps
in accordance with law.
67. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in the appeal case shall stand closed.
_________________________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
_________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
17th November, 2025
Mgr
