THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTI CE P. SREE SUDHA FAMI LY COURT APPEAL No.399 OF 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’, even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant-

husband.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-husband aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 19.08.2013, passed in F.C.O.P.No.544 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

3. Respondent-wife had filed the subject F.C.O.P., under Section 10(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, against the appellant- husband, seeking dissolution of marriage. Marriage of the appellant-husband with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 20.10.1993 in accordance with Christian rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. The marriage was consummated and they were blessed with two daughters, who were born on 11.09.1994 and 07.05.1999, respectively. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties.

4. According to the respondent-wife, at the time of marriage, the appellant-husband informed that he is practising Christian religion, but after marriage, she came to know that the appellant- husband is practising Hindu religion and the appellant-husband has suppressed the said fact. Even after marriage, the appellant- husband practised Hindu religion and she practised her own religion. The appellant-husband used to beat her demanding additional dowry. He used to abuse her in filthy and unparliamentary language. He is not accommodative and he is quarrelsome and he used to behave abnormally with fickle mind. He used to spend money lavishly. He is having bad vices viz., drinking alcohol, womanizing, gambling, chewing tobacco/gutka. Even he beat her on 24.11.2011. The appellant-husband used to spend his entire salary for drinking alcohol and other bad vices. On 16.06.1999, when her second daughter was aged about one month, he came in a drunken condition and beat her and she has attempted to commit suicide once. The appellant-husband also used to suspect her character. It was thus contended that the appellant-husband subjected the respondent-wife to cruelty.

5. To prove the said cruelty, the respondent-wife examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. To disprove the same, the appellant-husband examined himself as RW.1 and his father as RW.2 and got marked only Ex.B1-wedding card.

6. A perusal of the record would reveal that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide M.C.No.90 of 2010 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, was filed seeking maintenance and the learned Family Court vide order, dated 14.07.2011, granted maintenance to the children of the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife, but the appellant- husband did not pay the said amount. Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.07.2011, the appellant-husband preferred a revision vide Crl.R.C.No.1626 of 2011 before this Court. The respondent- wife also filed a petition vide M.P.No.222 of 2012 in M.C.No.90 of 2010 and obtained attachment of the salary of the respondent. The respondent-wife also lodged a complaint against the appellant-husband for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. During pendency of the subject F.C.O.P., the appellant-husband had filed counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

7. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order, dated 19.08.2012, allowed the subject F.C.O.P. by dissolving the marriage of the respondent-wife with the appellant-husband solemnized on 20.10.1993 and dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellant-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Court had also observed that the custody, guardianship and visitation rights of both the children is kept open and the appellant-husband is at liberty to claim the same, if so advised. Therefore, the impugned order is a reasoned order, well founded and does not warrant any interference i