*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO + FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.240 OF 2015 % 22—04—2025 # Ms. Varada Rukmini Devi … Appellant vs.

$ Mr. Varada Gopi … Respondent !Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S.Vijaya Prashanth ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C.M.R.Velu

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

1. 2000 (5) ALD 153 (DB)

2. 2013 (5) ALD 69 (DB)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.240 OF 2015 Between:

Ms. Varada Rukmini Devi … Appellant And Mr. Varada Gopi … Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.04.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

1. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No ___________________________

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO F.C.A.NO.240 OF 2015 J U D G M E N T:(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/wife aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in O.P.No.465 of 2010, dated 18.08.2015 by granting a decree of judicial separation on the application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2.1. It is stated in the O.P. filed by the respondent/husband that his marriage with the appellant/wife was performed on 24.04.1992 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, at Chaitanyapuri Colony, Hyderabad and they are not blessed with children. From the date of marriage, the appellant/wife never cared the respondent/husband nor performed her obligations as a wife in the matrimonial society. Appellant/wife is working as Assistant in Deaf and Dumb Government School at Miryalaguda and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and she used to look down the respondent/husband, who is working as a Typist in GHMC. Appellant/wife is educated better than the respondent/husband, that is also a reason to look down him by his wife. Appellant/wife has lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC against the respondent/husband and his parents at PS Saroornagar on 26.04.2007 only to harass them, at a later point of time, the said compliant has been withdrawn.

2.2. Parents of the respondent/husband are aged about 75 years and 60 years, the appellant/wife used to behave abnormally with the family members and used filthy language which caused mental depression apart from tension. Sister-in-law of the appellant lodged a complaint against the appellant/wife and her brother under Section 498-A of IPC unable to bear the torture. It is further contended in the O.P. that respondent/husband paid an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- by way of cheque to his wife in the name of one B.Narahari for purchasing a Flat at Lakshmi Apartments at Saroornagar in the year 1999. Parents of the appellant/wife never gave her any dowry in the form of cash or gold. Appellant/wife was not interested in children and she underwent abortion without his consent. Respondent/husband is unable to live in peace and is in distress due to the behaviour of his wife, which is beyond his control and his marriage is broken down beyond redemption and prayed to grant decree of judicial separation.

3.1. Appellant/wife filed counter in the O.P. filed by her husband and contended that her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of cash, presented five tulas of gold, furniture, household articles as per the demands of her husband and his family members. Appellant/wife was working in a Residential School for Deaf and Dumb at Miryalaguda, at the time of marriage respondent/husband and his family members have put a condition that she has to hand over all her salary to run the family so that they can lead happy life. Respondent/husband and his parents are greedy for money and they use to take h