* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO + FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.102 OF 2024 % 09—04—2025 # Voleti Vinay Rao … Appellant vs.

$ Smt. Vallabhaneni Swarajya Lakshmi … Respondent !Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar ^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri M.Phani Kumar

? Cases referred:

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

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.102 OF 2024 Between:

Voleti Vinay Rao … Appellant And Smt. Vallabhaneni Swarajya Lakshmi … Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09.04.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

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

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

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J _____________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO F.C.A.NO.102 OF 2024 J U D G M E N T:(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

1. The instant Appeal arises out of an order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.63 of 2017 filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) where under divorce was granted subject to payment of Rs.50,00,000/- to the minor (Viswas).

2. The contentions of the appellant and respondent are as follows:

2.1. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent/wife was performed on 11.06.2009 at Hotel Sai Anupama, near ECIL X Road, Malkajgiri Mandal and they lived happily till April, 2010. The respondent has harassed the petitioner physically and mentally. In the month of April, 2010 she left the company of the petitioner stating that the petitioner should join her after complying her demands. The respondent gave birth to a male child on 04.06.2010 and thereafter she did not turn back to the conjugal society. Elders from his side by name K.Subba Rao, Alla Srinivas conducted a meeting but could not be materialized.

2.2. The respondent filed her counter and submitted that she and her husband lived happily till April, 2010, the petitioner and his family members have suppressed the petitioner’s age as well as his divorce with his first wife. The petitioner is having relationship with one Nandini, she used to record their physical relations in C.D. The petitioner used to harass the respondent for additional dowry.

2.3. The respondent unable to bear the harassment of the petitioner, lodged a complaint before P.S. KPHB and case in Crime No.642 of 2016 is registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur. The petitioner is having agricultural land of 8.5 Acres worth Rs.4.5 Crores at Nuziveedu, Krishna District (Andhra Pradesh) and another land to an extent of 12.5 Acres in the same locality worth Rs.6.5. Crores, the petitioner also own house at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a Civil Contractor, doing works in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, earning Crores of Rupees, having movable and immovable properties and having Net cash of more than Rs.3 Crores. The respondent is entitled to claim Rs.2 Crores towards permanent alimony and prayed to dismiss the case.

3. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the parties and came to a finding that the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent on 11.06.2009 is dissolved by decree of divorce subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.50 Lakhs in the name of the minor (Viswas) by way of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank, the decree of dissolution of marriage should be effective after depositing the amount.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed a manifest error i