IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – Registration of criminal case against a person and making him/her face criminal trial without there being any fault on his/her behalf would certainly put them to trauma and turmoil and constitute sufficient ground to dissolve marriage in between parties.
(2) A marriage which is dead for all purposes, cannot be revived by Court’s verdict if parties are not willing.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

Dr. Shameem Akther, J.— Since the facts of the case, issue involved and the parties to the litigation are one and the same in both these appeals, both these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. FCA Nos.135 and 136 of 2014, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, are filed by the appellant/husband-Sai Prasad Moorthygari, challenging the common order, dated 24.06.2014, passed in FCOP Nos.21 of 2009 and 87 of 2010, by the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereby, the Court below, while dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion (FCOP No.87 of 2010), allowed the petition filed by the respondent/wife-Ram Kumari under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights (FCOP No.21 of 2009), directing the appellant/husband to restore the conjugal rights within two months from the date of the said common order.

3. We have heard the submissions of Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/husband in both these appeals, Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/wife in both these appeals and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband would contend that the Court below decided both the OPs against the weight of material evidence available on record. The appellant/husband meted out cruelty in the hands of respondent/wife in his marital life. The admitted fact is that both the parties are living separately since 12.04.2007. The Court below ought to have held that the respondent/wife had deserted the appellant/husband and granted divorce on that score. After marriage, counseling was held by Dr. Challa Subramanyam for leading amicable marital life. However, it did not work out due to the adamant attitude of the respondent/wife. There is evidence to establish that there was no intention on the part of the respondent/wife to cohabit with the appellant/husband. She wanted to live with her parents and is continuing to do the same. Learned counsel further contended that a false criminal case in C.C.No.46 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal, for the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the appellant/husband, his parents and two sisters. One of the sisters (A4 in the said Crime) died pending trial of the case, due to the trauma meted out to her for foisting a false criminal case. The other sister (A5 in the said crime) left to USA. There is specific admission in the counter filed by the respondent/wife that till the date of marriage of sister of the appellant/husband on 17.08.2006, the relation between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was good. However, the said sister of the appellant/husband also was roped in a false case. For no fault on their part, the appellant/husband, his parents and his sisters faced criminal trial, which caused a lot of mental trauma to all of them. However, the said criminal case ended in acquittal vide judgment, dated 21.01.2015, wherein, the learned Magistrate recorded several findings with regard to the innocence of the appellant/husband and his parents in the said crime. Further, the parties to the litigation are residing separately from the last fifteen years. There is no possibility of reconciliation and reunion between them. The marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvage. After about one and half decades of separation, it is not proper to ask the appellant/husband and respondent/wife to cohabit together again. Though there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the appellant/husband was subjected to cruelty and was deserted by the respondent/wife, the Court below erroneously declined to grant divorc