THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO Mr.J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.V.Preethi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Dharmesh K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent.

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Family Court Appeals arise out of an impugned Common Order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. The impugned Common Order was passed in the two Family Court Original Petitions (F.C.O.P.Nos.1139 and 1252 of 2017) by the respondent wife and the appellant husband, respectively. 2. The respondent/wife filed F.C.O.P.No.1139 of 2017 on 29.05.2017 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant/husband thereafter filed F.C.O.P.No.1252 of 2017 on

31.05.2017 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. By the impugned Common Order, the learned Family Court allowed the respondent’s F.C.O.P. by granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed the appellant’s F.C.O.P. for divorce, with costs. The appellant was directed to comply with the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Trial Court and as confirmed by the High Court on 02.12.2020 with regard to payment of interim maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs to the two children of the parties from 29.03.2018 – 04.12.2018 and from 05.02.2018 at the rate of Rs.3,12,500/- per month until further orders.

4. The appellant/husband has filed the present two Family Court Appeals challenging the dismissal of the appellant’s F.C.O.P for dissolution of marriage and against the grant of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent/wife.

5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Family Court Appeals are as follows:

6. The parties married as per Hindu rites and customs on at Hyderabad 03.08.2008. A son and a daughter were born to the parties on 29.09.2012 and 19.08.2015, respectively. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties leading to the respondent/wife filing a F.C.O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights, followed by the appellant/husband filing a F.C.O.P for divorce. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.35 to establish ‘cruelty’ as a ground for divorce. The respondent was examined as R.W.1, along with the appellant’s maternal uncle as R.W.2 and the respondent’s father as R.W.3. The respondent marked Exs.R.1 to R.18. Ex.X.1 was marked through the evidence of R.W.2.

7. In the meantime, the appellant challenged the interim maintenance amount granted by the Trial Court in I.A.No.358 of 2018 in FCOP.No.1252 of 2017 by filing CRP.No.738 of 2020. The respondent/wife also filed CRP.No.739 of 2020 for enhancement of interim maintenance for the minor children. The High Court vide Common Order dated 02.12.2020 refused to interfere with the interim maintenance granted by the Trial Court and dismissed both the Civil Revision Petitions. The order records that the petitioner/husband is willing to join the respondent/wife and that efforts are being made to settle the matter.

8. The Trial Court considered the evidence adduced by both the parties and examined the allegations and counter-allegations at a minute level. The Trial Court framed individual issues in the two F.C.O.Ps., namely, whether the respondent/wife is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights and whether the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife ought to be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Trial Court also framed an additional issue i.e., whether the appellant/husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

9. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court came to the findings as enumerated below:

(i) The petitioner/husband failed to prove that he was subjected to harassment and cruelty during the Christmas holiday trip in December 20