Ravirala Madhavi vs Ravirala Satyam
2025 Latest Caselaw 6501 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ravirala Madhavi vs Ravirala Satyam 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.4 OF 2014
                 ALONG WITH I.A. No.1 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. Pasham Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant - wife and Mr. J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the

respondent - husband.

2. This Family Court Appeal is preferred by the appellant

challenging the order dated 30.01.2013 in O.P. No.27 of 2009 passed

by learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda, granting decree of divorce by dissolving the

marriage tie between the appellant and the respondent held on

31.03.2000.

3. The appellant herein is the wife and the respondent herein is

the husband. He filed the aforesaid O.P. No.27 of 2009 under Section

- 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the

appellant - wife, seeking decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty

and desertion.

KL,J & VRKR,J

4. The respondent filed the aforesaid OP on the following

grounds:

i. Their marriage was held on 31.03.2000 as per Hindu rites and

customs.

ii. After the marriage, the appellant joined the company of the

respondent.

iii. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female and male

child, namely Ms. Sona Chandini and Mr. Yuvaraj.

iv. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties on account of

conduct of the appellant as she was in the habit of dominating

the respondent as she is a graduate in science, whereas the

respondent studied up to SSC.

v. The appellant used to demand money for unnecessary

expenditure. Since the respondent is working as a technician in

Photo Studio, he is unable to meet her luxury money demands.

vi. She went to her parents' house at Hyderabad in the year 2005

and refused to rejoin his company. However, at the intervention

of elders, to lead happy marital life, both the parties agreed to

live together and accordingly reduced into writing an

undertaking on 13.03.2005.

KL,J & VRKR,J

vii. Even then, there was no change in the attitude of the appellant

and went to her parents' house in May, 2005 without informing

the respondent.

viii. Despite the efforts put forth by the respondent including

issuance of notice in September, 2006, the appellant did not join

his company.

ix. The appellant filed a maintenance petition under Section - 20

(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

and the same was registered as Pre Litigation Case No.3 of

2006 and an award was passed on 30.12.2006 by the Lok

Adalat, wherein the parties agreed to live together and the

respondent undertook to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards

maintenance to her and children.

x. On arrival of the appellant to the house of the respondent, it was

found that she was carrying pregnancy. Therefore, he got

examined her in Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Nalgonda on

03.02.2007. After getting a lab report, the doctor opined that

the appellant was carrying pregnancy of six (06) weeks.

Therefore, the respondent entertained a doubt for the said

pregnancy and questioned her as to how she was carrying six

KL,J & VRKR,J

weeks of pregnancy when she rejoined his society only on

17.01.2007.

xi. Therefore, the appellant gave a report on 06.02.2007 alleging

demand of additional dowry by the respondent and the same

was registered as Crime No.26 of 2007 by Women Police

Station, Nalgonda for the offences under Sections - 498A and

506 of IPC and Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet

and the same was numbered as C.C. No.53 of 2007. However,

it was ended in acquittal.

xii. She has also filed a petition under Section - 25 of Cr.P.C. vide

M.C. No.282 of 2007 before the learned Judge, Additional

Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking maintenance, wherein an

amount of Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be paid by the respondent

to her and an amount of Rs.1,500/- each to the children.

5. The appellant herein filed counter denying the claim of the

respondent on the following grounds:

KL,J & VRKR,J

i. At the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry apart from other house-hold articles

worth Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner.

ii. Few months thereafter, the respondent started harassing her for

additional dowry. In pursuance thereof, the respondent

demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- for which he drove

her out of the house and, therefore, she was compelled to live

separately from the respondent.

iii. She denied about his lavishly spending the amount for

unnecessary things.

iv. The respondent harassed the appellant, both mentally and

physically and threatened her that he would contact second

marriage.

v. The respondent got one concubine, namely Hyma and always

abused her to leave his company, so that he can marry that

woman.

vi. The respondent made all false and baseless allegations in the

petition with an intention to get divorce from the Court.

KL,J & VRKR,J

6. In order to prove the case of the respondent herein, he

himself examined as PW.1 and also examined his caste elder as PW.2

on his behalf, and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, whereas the appellant

herself examined as RW1 and got examined RWs.2 and 3 on her

behalf and also marked Ex.R1.

7. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the

evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 30.01.2013,

learned Judge, Family Court allowed the said O.P. granting decree of

divorce dissolving the marriage held on 31.03.2000 between the

parties on the following grounds:

i. The appellant left the company of the respondent voluntarily

and filed criminal cases with false allegations to harass him, it

amounts to mental cruelty.

ii. The appellant did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal

judgment

iii. The appellant did not prove the illegal intimacy of the

respondent with Hyma.

iv. The appellant herself admitted that she got abortion of six

weeks pregnancy, but she deposed that it is informed to the

KL,J & VRKR,J

respondent which was denied by him. All these facts would

amount to mental cruelty to the respondent.

v. Both the parties are living separately before filing the petition

and there is no chance of re-union to lead marital life.

vi. There were no cordial relations between the parties.

8. Challenging the said decree of divorce, the appellant - wife

filed the present appeal.

9. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is filed by the appellant - wife to receive

Photostat copy of order in M.C. No.282 of 2007, as additional

evidence. It is the specific contention of the appellant - wife that she

and her children have filed a petition under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C.

against the respondent - husband seeking maintenance. Vide order

dated 02.04.2009, learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for

trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family

Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, ordered an

amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month to the

wife, Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) per

month each to the children. There is no challenge to the said order.

However, learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the said

KL,J & VRKR,J

fact and the order. In the light of the same, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is

ordered.

10. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the

marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on

31.03.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage.

They were blessed with two (02) children out of their wedlock i.e.,

Ms. Sona Chandini and Mr. Yuvaraj, who are aged seven (07) and six

(06) years, respectively at the time of impugned order. Now, they are

23 and 22 years respectively. At the time of filing the aforesaid OP,

the respondent - husband was 38 years and now he is 56 years,

whereas the appellant - wife was 31 years and now she is 46 years. It

is not in dispute that the respondent was a Technician in Usha Kiran

Digital Colour Lab.

11. As discussed above, the respondent - husband has filed the

aforesaid petition against the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage

on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, burden lies on him

to plead and prove the same.

12. In the aforesaid petition, he has specifically stated that

misunderstandings arose between him and his wife. His wife used to

KL,J & VRKR,J

go to her parental house at Hyderabad very frequently in spite of the

instructions by husband not to go very frequently and whenever she

used to go to Hyderabad, she never returns to his company unless he

takes back her to his house at Nalgonda. She was in the habit of

dominating him on the ground that she is a graduate in Science,

whereas he studied up to SSC. She used to spend money above the

level earning capacity of the husband. She used to demand money

very frequently to meet her unnecessary expenditure. He was working

as Technician in Photo Studio and he was unable to satisfy her money

demands and luxury wants. Thus, the appellant herein started

harassing him by leaving his company.

13. In the year 2005, she left the company of the husband. He

has placed the matter before the caste elders, who advised them to live

together to lead marital life happily. Both the parties agreed

accordingly and reduced terms into writing by an undertaking dated

13.03.2005. Thereafter, the wife resumed conjugal society of the

husband. But, there is no change in her attitude. She went away to

her parental house in May, 2005 without informing the husband

ignoring the said undertaking given before the caste elders. He has

submitted an application to the President, Nalgonda District

KL,J & VRKR,J

Padmashali Sangham, Nalgonda on 02.07.2005. The President called

for reply from the appellant herein. The said President of the

Sangham called both the parties and their elders for settlement of

disputes between them on 09.08.2005. The husband and his elders

appeared before the President of the Sangam on 09.08.2005, whereas

the wife and her elders did not attend. Therefore, the meeting was

adjourned to 16.08.2005, on which date she did not come forward.

Therefore, the President and Members of the said Sangam came to an

opinion that the appellant - wife was not interested to lead happy

marital life with the respondent - husband.

14. Thereafter, he has issued a legal notice in September, 2006

calling her to join his company. Despite receiving the said legal

notice, she did not join his company and on the other hand, she has

filed an application under Section - 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the permanent Lok Adalat

at Metropolitan City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. On 22.12.2006, the

same was registered as Pre Litigation Case No.3 of 2006. An award

dated 30.12.2006 has been passed, parties have also agreed to live

together. The husband undertook to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per

month towards maintenance to her and the children. Accordingly, the

KL,J & VRKR,J

wife arrived to the house of the husband. She was carrying

pregnancy. Therefore, he got examined the wife in Venkateshwara

Nursing Home, Nalgonda on 03.02.2007. After getting a lab report,

the doctor has opined that she was carrying six (06) weeks pregnancy.

Therefore, the husband entertained a doubt for the said pregnancy and

questioned the wife as to how she was carrying six weeks of

pregnancy, when she re-joined his society only on 17.01.2007. There

was no explanation from her. Then the husband started entertaining a

doubt about the paternity of the child in the womb and she has filed a

complaint before the Women Police Station, Nalgonda on 06.02.2007,

who in turn registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2007.

15. She has also filed an application under Section - 125 of

Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.282 of 2007 seeking maintenance. The same

was also allowed in part. The respondent came to know that the

appellant got aborted the third issue at Hyderabad without intimation

to him. Ex.P4 is the medical prescription dated 03.02.2007. Thus, she

got aborted the pregnancy apprehending that the paternity of the said

issue will be questioned by the respondent through DNA test and her

conduct will come to open. After completion of investigation in the

said crime, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the

KL,J & VRKR,J

husband and it was taken on file vide C.C. No.53 of 2007. The same

was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 28.01.2009. However, the

appellant did not prefer any appeal and, therefore, the said judgment

attained finality.

16. As discussed above, to prove the said cruelty and desertion,

the respondent - husband examined himself as PW.1 and caste elder as

PW.2. Both of them spoke on the same lines. Nothing was elicited

from them during cross-examination. Perusal of record would reveal

that the wife has lodged the aforesaid complaint against the husband

for the offence under Sections - 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections - 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was ended in acquittal

vide Ex.P1. She has approached the permanent Lok Adalat by filing

an application in PLA No.1067 of 2006, and the Lok Adalat passed an

Award under Ex.P2. She has also filed an application under Section -

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and

learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,

passed Ex.P3 order.

17. It is relevant to note that after Ex.P2 - Award of Lok

Adalat, the appellant - wife joined the company of the respondent.

KL,J & VRKR,J

She was carrying pregnancy of six (06) weeks. He got suspicion on

the appellant - wife. Thereafter, she got the said pregnancy aborted.

To prove the same, the husband has filed Ex.P4, dated 03.02.2007.

18. It is also not in dispute that PW.2 has issued notice dated

02.08.2005 to the appellant - wife vide Ex.R1 with a request to attend

the meeting. Neither the wife, nor her elders attended the said

meeting. PW.2 specifically deposed about the said fact. Nothing was

elicited from him during cross-examination.

19. Thus, the aforesaid facts would reveal that there are

strained relation between the appellant and the respondent. They are

residing separately from 2005 onwards.

20. As discussed above, burden lies on the husband to plead

and prove the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. In the present

case, he has pleaded and proved the said grounds as spoken to by him

and PW.2. The wife herself admitted about lodging of the aforesaid

complaint and filing of an application under Section - 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

21. It is the specific contention of the appellant - wife that she

underwent abortion informing the same to the respondent - husband.

KL,J & VRKR,J

It is also her specific contention that she never deserted her husband

and only due to his unbearable harassment she was compelled to live

separately from him along with her children. The husband always

used to harass her, both mentally and physically. She has also further

stated that as there was no change in the attitude of her husband, she

was compelled to place the matter before the community elders, who

convened a meeting in the year 2002 at Hyderabad and found fault

with the husband. They have also advised him to take his wife. But,

she has not examined any of the said elders and she examined her

maternal and paternal uncle.

22. It is also not in dispute that the husband studied up to SSC

and the wife completed her graduation i.e., B.Sc. It is also a reason

for differences between the parties. She admitted the said facts during

her cross-examination. During cross-examination, she has admitted

that her father used to stay in Dubai and that she used to stay with her

mother. Since her father was staying in Abroad, she was having much

attachment towards her mother. Whenever she has gone to Hyderabad

unless her husband personally came and get her back to Nalgonda, she

used to stay with her mother. Her husband used to abuse her and used

to beat her. Therefore, she used to go to her mother. However, she

KL,J & VRKR,J

has not mentioned the said facts in her counter. She has also admitted

that she left the company of her husband in February, 2005 due to his

harassment and in March, 2005, caste elders came to her to mediate

between her and her husband. On 13.03.2005 caste elders pacified and

decided that she has to join her husband's company.

23. Though the wife alleged that her husband used to maintain

illegal intimacy with an employee, namely Hyma, working in the said

Digital Lab, she failed to prove the same. She has not examined any

witness to the said effect and she has not filed any document to prove

the same. In May, 2005, she along with her children joined her

mother at Hyderabad on the ground that her husband quarreled with

her and thrown her out. She has also admitted about her husband

placing the matter before the Padmashali Sangam and that PW.2

issued notice i.e., Ex.R1. Though she has stated that she could not

attend the said meeting in view of hospitalization of her son, she has

not mentioned the said fact in her counter. She has admitted about her

husband issuing legal notice in September, 2006. She gave reply, but

she has not filed the same. She has not mentioned the said fact in the

counter. She has also admitted about passing of Ex.P2 Award by the

permanent Lok Adalat.

KL,J & VRKR,J

24. RWs.2 and 3, maternal and paternal uncles of the appellant

- wife, deposed with regard to the respondent harassing the appellant.

Both of them specifically deposed that the husband is financially

sound person, he is having four (04) mulgies/shops at Clock Tower

Centre, which is heart of Nalgonda Town in which he used to run a

lab with approximate investment of Rs.50-60 lakhs in the name of

Usha Kiran Lab. They have not filed any document. RW.2 during

cross-examination admitted that he does not know the details of

immovable properties of the husband, and so also the investment

made by him in the said lab. RW.3 also admitted with regard to the

same. He has admitted about termination of pregnancy by the

appellant - wife, but it is due to ill-health.

25. 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.

26. 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 1.

27. 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 2.

28. 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 3.

29. 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 4.

30. 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 Tripathy5.

31. 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.

32. Perusal of record would reveal that the respondent -

husband had filed the aforesaid petition vide OP No.27 of 2009 in the

year 2009. It was allowed on 30.01.2013. Assailing the said order,

. MANU/KE/1505/2021

(2005) 7 SCC 353

KL,J & VRKR,J

appellant - wife preferred the present Appeal in the year 2014. The

parties are staying separately from 2005 i.e., since last 20 years.

33. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli6, 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.

. (2006) 4 SCC 558

KL,J & VRKR,J

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 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."

34. In view of the above discussion, it is revealed that there

was strained relation between the appellant and the respondent. She

KL,J & VRKR,J

has made a serious allegation that the husband maintained illicit

relation with his colleague, Hyma. It is not in dispute that both of

them were living separately from May, 2005.

35. It is settled principle that neither Family Court nor this

Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break

down of marriage, but certainly it is an aspect to be considered by this

Court along with other aspects.

36. As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, despite

panchayats and Ex.P2 - Award passed by Lok Adalat, they are staying

separately from May, 2005. On consideration of the said facts only,

the learned Family Court granted decree of divorce vide impugned

order. This Court stayed the said impugned order on 11.10.2013. As

discussed above, both the appellant and the respondent are 46 and 56

years at present.

37. As discussed above, the appellant - wife and her children

filed a petition under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent -

husband seeking maintenance. Vide order dated 02.04.2009, learned

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car

Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII

KL,J & VRKR,J

Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, ordered an amount of Rs.2,000/-

(Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month to the wife, Rs.1,500/-

(Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) per month each to

the children. According to learned counsel, the respondent has been

paying the said amount in compliance with the said order.

38. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of

this Court that their daughter, namely Ms. Sona Chandini, is suffering

from Cancer and she is recovering. Even, husband is also suffering

from cancer and he is on treatment. It is the contention of the

appellant that she has been providing treatment to her daughter. It is

the contention of the husband that he has also borne the expenditure

for the treatment of his daughter. In the light of the same, we are of

the considered view that there is no possibility of the appellant and the

respondent living together and leading marital life happily. They are

living separately from May, 2005. Though the appellant - wife

contended that the respondent invested an amount of Rs.50-60 lakhs

in establishing Usha Kiran Digital Colour Lab and he is owner of four

(04) mulgies/shops at Clock Tower, Nalgonda Town, she has not filed

any document to prove the same. On consideration of the said aspects

KL,J & VRKR,J

only, the learned Family Court granted decree of divorce vide

impugned order and, there is no error in it. However, the trial Court

did not grant any permanent alimony to the wife.

39. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of

this Court that the appellant - wife and her both children filed a suit

vide O.S. No.253 of 2023 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

Nalgonda, for perpetual injunction and granted interim injunction.

The same is subsisting. The suit schedule property in the said suit is

house bearing Nos.1, 2 and 3 consists of 242 square yards in Survey

No.77, situated at Marriguda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

40. In the cause title of the OP, the husband has mentioned that

the appellant herein was a private employee at the relevant point of

time. Even in the cause title of the present appeal, she has mentioned

that she is private employee, but there is no evidence on record with

regard to the same. During cross-examination of wife, the husband

did not elicit anything from her with regard to her employment and

earning capacity. Admittedly, the appellant - wife brought up both the

children. Their daughter is presently aged 23 years and she is

suffering from cancer. The wife has to meet the said expenditure,

KL,J & VRKR,J

provide treatment and perform her marriage. The learned Family

Court did not consider the said aspects and did not award any

permanent alimony to the wife.

41. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order

dated 30.01.2013 in O.P. No.27 of 2009 passed by learned Judge,

Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda,

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 which includes monthly maintenance awarded to them in the

aforesaid MC. The same is towards full and final settlement of the

claims of appellant - wife and her children. The respondent shall pay

the said amount within two (02) months from today, failing which the

appellant - wife is entitled to take steps in accordance with law. On

receipt of the aforesaid amount, the appellant - wife and her children

shall take all necessary steps to withdraw the aforesaid suit.

42. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

KL,J & VRKR,J

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