The court established that mental cruelty, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and the appellant/wife's means to maintain herself were key legal principles influencing the decision.

JUDGMENT :

Shameem Akther, J.

This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed by the appellant/wife, challenging the order, dated 04.12.2013, passed in O.P.No.86 of 2011 by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984, for dissolution of marriage performed between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband on 07.05.1999 and for grant of permanent alimony of Rs.10 lakhs to the appellant/wife, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/wife, learned counsel for the respondent/husband and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that the marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband was performed on 07.05.1999 at Gudivada, Krishna District. During their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child. Soon after the marriage, the respondent/husband started harassing the appellant/wife mentally and physically, demanding additional dowry. The respondent/husband did not use to provide bare necessities to the appellant/wife. Therefore, the appellant/wife started a beauty parlour and started earning. Further, the respondent/husband assaulted the appellant/wife many times by suspecting her character by abusing her with sarcastic comments. At a point of time, the respondent/ husband dragged the appellant/wife into the kitchen and tried to leak the gas with an intention to kill her. Further, whenever the appellant/wife used to come a little late to the house due to beauty parlour work, the respondent/husband used to refuse to open the door and made her to stand on the road for the whole night. Unable to bear the harassment and cruelty of the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife lodged a complaint with Gudivada I Town Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.47 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the respondent/husband pressurized the appellant/wife to withdraw the case and accordingly, the said crime was referred as ‘mistake of fact’. As the harassment of the respondent/husband did not stop, the appellant/wife lodged another complaint which was registered as Crime No.164 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 498A, 447, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The appellant/wife and the respondent/husband are living separately since the last 10 years and there are no efforts from either side to continue the marital life. The marriage between them has broken down beyond repair. All emotions are dead and the subject marriage has become unworkable. There is not even remote possibility of reunion of the parties. Hence, it is a fit case to dissolve the marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband. The Court below, without considering these aspects, erroneously declined to grant a decree of divorce between the parties. Further, though the respondent/husband has sufficient means to pay permanent alimony to the appellant/wife, the Court below refused to grant the same and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that all the allegations made against the respondent/husband are absolutely false. The respondent/husband obtained loan with the consent of the appellant/wife and cleared the loan amount and handed over the documents to the appellant/wife long back. The respondent/ husband never pressurized the appellant/wife to withdraw the case in Crime No.47 of 2010 as alleged. The appellant/wife, on the intervention of elders, herself withdrew the case in order to lead marital life. The appellant/wife again filed Crime No.164 of 2010 against the respondent/husband, his parents, brother and cousin, due to which, they were in jail for three days. Further, the parties are not living together from the last 10 years. T