THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY F.C.A. No.221 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and respondent. We have perused the record.

2. As observed by us on 09.10.2025, notice sent to the respondent is returned as un-served with an endorsement no such person is residing at the address mentioned. Sending notice to the respondent to the address available is sufficient in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

3. Appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. Appellant filed a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, vide FCOP No.1538 of 2010 against respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Vide impugned order dated 03.12.2014, learned the Judge, Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal.

4. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 02.07.1998 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage.

5. According to the appellant, the said marriage was performed in a simple manner as the respondent and her family members hail from a poor family. There was no exchange of dowry. After marriage, the respondent joined the appellant at his matrimonial house. Out of their wedlock there were no issues. The appellant and the respondent separated in the year 2008 itself.

6. He has further contended that the respondent was cruel from the day one onwards. Her behavior was peculiar and strange and there was no love and affection. She was arrogant, troublesome and unfriendly towards the appellant and his family members. The respondent did not discharge her domestic and social obligations. She never shows any interest towards the appellant herein. She used to pick up quarrel on petty issues and used to create big scene and nuisance.

7. It is further contended by him that the respondent was very adamant and egoistic. She appears like a sadistic and psychic person. Thus, the respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty. Mediation was held before the elders and well wishers. Both the appellant and respondent decided to break the marital tie and entered into understanding. The same was reduced into writing on 06.09.2008 by way of matrimonial settlement. They have decided to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent. As per the said agreement, all the house-hold articles, clothes, gold and jewellery were handed over to the respondent. The respondent has admitted and accepted the same and she has voluntarily given up her right to claim maintenance and permanent alimony.

8. It is further contended by the appellant that on 06.09.2008 itself, the respondent left the house of the appellant willfully and living at Chennai. Thus, she did not come forward to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent as agreed on 06.09.2008. Therefore, he has filed the aforesaid petition before the Family Court, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

9. The respondent filed counter denying the said allegations made by the appellant.

10. To prove the cruelty, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and his sister Ms.Madhu Sharma as P.W.2. He has filed Ex.P1, Wedding Card, Exs.P2 and P3 photographs and Ex.P4, the matrimonial settlement deed dated 06.09.2008. To disprove the said cruelty, the respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and she also examined her father-Kanhayalal Sharma as R.W.2. She has filed Ex.R1, the matrimonial settlement deed dated 06.09.2008.

11. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has dismissed the said petition holding that both the parties have agreed to take divorce with mutual consent, but they could not file any petition seeking divorce on mutual consent.

12. According to the respondent, appellant has not complied with the promises made by hi