HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAMILY COURT APP EAL No.285 OF 2011 Date: 20.01.2026 Between xxxxxx xxxxxx …..Appellant and xxxxxx xxxxxx …..Respondent

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. N.C.Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. E.Karunasri, learned counsel representing Mr. B.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed by appellant-husband challenging the order dated 18.10.2011 in O.P.No.540 of 2008, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. The appellant has filed the O.P U/s.13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage with the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty.

3. The marriage of the appellant-husband with the respondent-wife was performed on 13.02.2005 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and it is an arranged marriage. According to the appellant- husband, they lived happily for some time before the appellant- husband left for U.S.A, on 26.02.2005. Thereafter, she stayed in appellant-husband’s house for a week and later respondent-wife left for Surat to join her studies, M.C.A. Subsequently, the respondent- wife joined the appellant on 02.09.2005 in USA and stayed till 30.11.2006. The appellant-husband helped the respondent-wife financially to meet her examination fee for pursuing her MCA examination. The respondent-wife left for India on 30.11.2006 to appear for final year exams and joined the company of the appellant- husband on 11.02.2006 and stayed till 30.11.2006 in USA. During the said stay, there were disputes between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife. According to the appellant-husband, the respondent- wife subjected him to cruelty as the respondent did not cooperate with the appellant in leading sexual life as well as routine day to day affairs. The appellant-husband has narrated several instances to prove the said cruelty.

4. To prove the said cruelty, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and PW’s 2 to 5. The appellant has filed Exhibits A1 to A4. To disprove the same, the respondent examined herself as RW1, the evidence of RW2 was eschewed and she has also examined RW3, her father’s co-brother. The respondent has not filed any documents. However, Ex.X1 is marked by the Court. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order, the learned Family Court granted decree of divorce and also awarded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony.

5. It is apt to note that respondent-wife did not prefer any appeal challenging the impugned order of the learned Family Court granting divorce. The appellant challenged the impugned order only to the extent of Family Court directing him to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent-wife towards permanent alimony.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was a software engineer at the time of filing of the said OP and he was only on temporary employment basis and thereafter, he was unemployed. Without considering the said aspect, learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony.

7. It is apt to note that the respondent did not prefer any appeal to the extent of granting divorce and the present appeal is filed by the appellant-husband to the extent of awarding Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony on the ground that the learned Family Court did not give any reasons while awarding the said amount to the respondent herein.

8. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that appellant was a software engineer, who stayed in USA for sometime and right now he is not in USA and he is getting handsome salary. On consideration of the said aspects only the learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent towards permanent alimony. There is no error in it.

9. A perusal of th