Marriage dissolution requires substantiation of cruelty and desertion, influenced by long-term separation, establishing irreparable breakdown and entitlement to permanent alimony.

JUDGMENT:

K. Lakshman, J.

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 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.

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 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