COMMON JUDGMENT

(Per the Hon(cid:146)ble Smt. Justice M.G.Priyadarsini)

The appellant in both the appeals is the husband and the respondent is his wife.

He filed FCOP. No.22 of 2014 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad against the respondent under Section 13(1)(i‐a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as (cid:145)the Act(cid:146)) seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of (cid:145)cruelty(cid:146). The respondent (cid:150) wife filed FCOP.No.634 of 2014 on the file of the same court under Section 9 of the Act seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner.

2. Vide common order and decree dated 19.06.2018, the Trial Court dismissed the FCOP.No.22 of 2014 filed by the husband for divorce, and allowed the FCOP.No.634 of 2014 filed by the respondent (cid:150) wife for restitution of conjugal rights and directed the petitioner (cid:150) husband to restore the conjugal rights to the respondent (cid:150) wife by joining her within two months from the date of the order.

3. Assailing the above stated common order and decree, the husband filed the respective appeals. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original petitions.

4. Case of the petitioner (cid:150) husband: That his marriage with the respondent was performed on 14.03.2012 as per Hindu customs and rights at Satya Sai Nigamagam, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad and the marriage was consummated.

(i). That at the time of marriage, during pre‐marriage talks, the respondent (cid:150)

wife agreed for getting transferred from Bengaluru, so as to join the petitioner at Hyderabad after marriage, and with the said understanding and assurance, the alliance was fixed, and they got married on 14.03.2012 after performing engagement on

08.02.2012.

(ii) That the respondent was asked to serve notice to her employer to resign to her job prior to the marriage, so as to get herself relieved within two or three months after the marriage for shifting to Hyderabad. But the respondent did not resign her job at Bengaluru as promised either prior to, or immediately after the marriage, and she only applied for two weeks leave, and after the marriage ceremony, she left to Bengaluru.

(iii) That there was no change in her attitude and behavior after the marriage, and she has given a vague reply to the petitioner when enquired about the status of her resignation.

(iv) That the respondent instead of resigning to her job, started pressurizing the petitioner to shift to Bengaluru, leaving his parents, and this indifferent attitude on the part of the respondent, created doubts and untold misery and mental agony to the petitioner and there appears to be a hidden conspiracy.

(v) That the respondent misrepresented the facts and tried to make false allegations without paying any heed to the advice of the petitioner, and his father, to relocate to Hyderabad.

(vi) That, later the respondent has been recording the private and family conversations as a regular habit since the early days after marriage itself, and manipulating the discussions to her advantage and putting them on e‐mails. She has focused more on hidden agenda, and collecting documentation, rather than building a better relationship, causing breach of trust between them.

(vii) That in the month of June, 2012, the parents of the respondent enquired the parents of the petitioner about their intention to send (cid:147)saare(cid:148) (traditional farewell) to the respondent at Bengaluru, which shattered the dreams of the parents of the petitioner.

(viii) That the respondent rarely visited the matrimonial home for a day or two in different spells, totaling to 15 days from the date of her marriage till September, 2012, when she relocated to Hyderabad, and joined the petitioner.

(ix) That after the respondent joined the petitioner, his parents left to New Delhi in October, 2012, to provide privacy to them, and to improve their relationship. But t