AND F.C.A. No.141 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Mrs. P.Srilalitha, learned counsel representing Mr.

K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that despite her best efforts, learned counsel for the appellant could not contact her client.

2. This appeal is of the year 2015 and OP is of the year 2013. Therefore, we have heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

3. Appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 23.02.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a female child in the month of November, 2009. Thereafter disputes arose between them. According to respondent-husband, appellant-wife subjected him to cruelty. Therefore, he has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 vide H.M.O.P No.6 of 2013 against the appellant-wife seeking dissolution of marriage. The same was allowed on

28.11.2014.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellant-wife preferred an appeal vide F.C.A.No.217 of 2014. Vide order dated 24.04.2025, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal observing that the appellant-wife also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed. Even then, she has not preferred any appeal.

5. In fact, the observation of the Co-ordinate Bench is factually incorrect in view of the pendency of the present appeal. It is also relevant to note that neither the appellant, who preferred appeal vide F.C.A.No.217 of 2014 nor the respondent brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench with regard to the pendency of the present appeal, while dismissing of F.C.A. No.217 of 2014. Further, appellant-wife did not take any steps to restore the said appeal to its original position.

6. Appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights vide F.C.O.P.No.50 of 2013. Vide order dated 28.11.2014, learned Family Court dismissed the said petition.

7. As discussed supra, in view of the dismissal of F.C.A.No.217 of 2014, dated 24.04.2025, the order of Family Court dated 28.11.2014 vide H.M.O.P. No.6 of 2013, dissolving the marriage of the appellant and respondent attained finality. Therefore, nothing remains in the present appeal to adjudicate further.

8. But, we are concerned with the daughter, who born in the month of November, 2009. Now she is aged about 16 years. Vide order dated 24.04.2025 in F.C.A. No.217 of 2014, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the appellant-wife to approach the Family Court concerned by filing appropriate application seeking permanent alimony.

9. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant-wife is a Medical Practitioner and she has capacity to sustain herself. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that earlier respondent-husband offered some amount, towards maintenance of the child which was not accepted by the appellant-wife. Respondent-husband is a Software Engineer. According to the learned counsel, there were properties in the name of respondent in Guntur. He has sold the said properties. However, it is not in dispute that their daughter is 16 years old and it is the appellant-wife, who brought up her. She has to give her higher education apart from performing her marriage.

10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that respondent-husband shall pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs only) to his daughter towards maintenance in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt drawn in her favor and it is towards her full and final settlement of her maintenance, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this or