HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.125 of 2014 ALONG WITH I.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

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

We have heard Sri Sritharam, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.B.S. Narasimha Anudeep, learned counsel for the Appellant - wife. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent - husband.

2. The Family Court Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 16.06.2014 in F.C.O.P No.262 of 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties held on 28.05.2005.

3. The appellant is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The Respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP No. 262 of 2010 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the appellant – wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion contending as follows:

i. His marriage with the appellant herein was performed on

28.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs.

ii. It was an arranged marriage, and they were blessed with a female child on 17.11.2006, namely, Siri Chandana.

iii. At the time of marriage, he was working in M/s. Bal Pharma Limited. After few months of marriage, appellant started demanding him to live separately from his parents and began to harass him.

iv. She did not cooperate in maintaining conjugal relationship.

Consequently, the respondent put up separate residence in Warangal and started living away from his aged parents from October 2007.

v. Appellant used to restrict him from visiting his parents and demanded to hand over his entire salary to her.

vi. During the said period, while they were living separately, she made a false allegation that her husband had attempted to kill her by leaking LPG Gas.

vii. On his transfer to Hubli, Karnataka, on promotion, he informed her that he would require 4–5 months to complete his training, to find out suitable accommodation and requested her to vacate the rented house and stay with her parents in the meantime.

viii. When he met with an accident at Hubli and was bedridden, despite being informed, she did not care to visit him.

ix. Due to her constant harassment, he was compelled to submit his resignation in October 2008. Subsequently, she lodged a complaint on 29.10.2008 against him and his family members.

x. On 15.11.2008, he was forced to give an undertaking stating that if he secured employment, he would take her to the place of his posting by 01.12.2008. However, as he could not secure any job till the end of December 2008, he was advised to resume the conjugal relationship, but the wife refused to join him.

xi. Appellant approached the DSP, Hanumakonda, on 18.01.2009.

Both parties were called, and the DSP admonished the wife and her father, advising her to join the husband, to which she initially agreed.

xii. The appellant made unreasonable demands for structural modifications to the house and stated that unless these demands were met, she would not join the company of the husband.

xiii. Owing to such conduct of the wife, the Respondent/Husband filed F.C.O.P. No. 262 of 2010 seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Appellant/Wife did not join the society of the husband since 2009. On these grounds, he sought dissolution of the marriage.

4. The appellant filed counter, denying the claim of the respondent, contending as follows:-

i. She never subjected the husband to cruelty as alleged. At the time of marriage, her parents presented an amount of Rs.2,00,000/– in cash, two shutters at Mangapet, and other household articles towards dowry.

ii. She sought to live separately due to the distance from her workplace and to avoid harassment from her in-laws, who restricted her from taking care of her child. After the marriage, her in-laws allegedly started harassing her mentally and physically, de