IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

and

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.222 of 2019

Date: 04.12.2025

Between:

P.Sasi Kumar Reddy

...petitioner

AND

P.Vijitha

...respondent

JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN)

Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel appearing for

Sri R.A.Chary, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Ravi

Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09.05.2019 in F.C.O.P. No.1159 of 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, the appellant preferred

the present appeal.

3. The appellant–husband filed a petition vide F.C.O.P. No.1159 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent–wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Their marriage was performed on 10.02.2006, and they were blessed with a male child in the year 2007.

4. According to the appellant, the respondent left his company on 26.12.2007. She did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter. The efforts made by the appellant to bring the respondent back to his company became a futile exercise. On 06.03.2008, the appellant went and requested the respondent to join his company. The respondent did not speak to him and did not allow him to see his son. Fed up with the said attitude of the respondent, the appellant got issued a legal notice dated 10.06.2009 requesting the respondent to join his company. She did not join him. Therefore, he filed a petition vide O.P. No.734 of 2009 against the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent entered appearance in the said O.P. and reported no objection. She also informed the learned Family Court that she would join the appellant. Recording the said submissions, the learned Family Court allowed F.C.O.P. No.734 of 2009 on

19.03.2012.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite the aforesaid order, the respondent did not join his company. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated 13.07.2012 requesting the respondent to join his company. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said legal notice, the respondent did not join him. Thus, according to the appellant, the respondent subjected him to cruelty and deserted him.

6. The respondent filed a counter opposing the said O.P., contending that she never subjected the appellant to cruelty and never deserted him.

7. To prove the alleged cruelty and desertion, the appellant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 – Wedding Card and Ex.P2 – Copy of Legal Notice. To dispute the said allegations of cruelty and desertion, the respondent examined herself as RW-1. 8. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 09.05.2019 in F.C.O.P. No.1159 of 2012, dismissed the said O.P. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in M.C. No.255 of 2009. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to the respondent and her son. The appellant challenged the said order, and the matter is pending. However, on instructions, he further submits that the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.30 lakhs to the respondent so far. The respondent has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DVC Act’) in DVC No.38 of 2009. The said application was allowed. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed a revision in Crl.R.C. No.495 of 2023, and the same is pending. He would further contend that the respondent also lodged a complaint against the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, which is pending in C.C. No.4868 of 2018. Thus, according to the appellant, the respondent