HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY F.C.A. Nos. 152 and 156 of 2019 Date: 10.02.2026 Between:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ….. Appellants and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ….. Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy Since these Family Court Appeals arise out of the common order and decree dated 11.05.2019 passed in F.C.O.P No. 1328 of 2015 including the order on the counter claim therein, on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, they were heard analogously and disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Family Court.

3. Both the appeals gave been preferred by the petitioner. F.C.A. No.152 of 2019 has been filed challenging the decree and common order dated 11.05.2019 passed in F.C.O.P No. 1328 of 2015, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/wife seeking divorce, against the respondent/husband, was dismissed and whereas F.C.A. No. 156 of 2019 has been filed seeking dismissal of the counter claim preferred by the respondent in F.C.O.P No.

1328 of 2015 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

4. The Petitioner filed the original petition vide F.C.O.P. No. 1328 of 2015 against the Respondent under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”) seeking a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 13.02.2013.

5. The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioner are as under:

a) The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 13.02.2013 at Swagath Function Hall, Kothapet, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was consummated, but no children were born out of the wedlock. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.5,50,000/-, gold ornaments, and household articles to the respondent. After the marriage, the couple lived together only for a few days at Venkata Sainagar, West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad. Thereafter, the respondent tortured the petitioner over petty issues.

b) In November 2013, the respondent beat the petitioner, demanded additional dowry, and necked her out of the matrimonial home. Since then, the petitioner has been residing with her parents at Miryalaguda. A panchayat was held, but the respondent behaved indifferently and did not mend his conduct. The respondent sent defamatory messages and made phone calls to the petitioner causing mental agony. Since the efforts made by the elders in compromising the issue failed, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 09.06.2014 asking the respondent to change his conduct. The respondent sent a reply with false allegations. Hence, the petitioner filed the F.C.O.P. No. 1328 of 2015 on the file of the learned Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage.

6. In reply to the averments made in the Petition, the Respondent filed his Counter, the brief averments of which are as under:

a) The respondent denied having received Rs. 5,50,000/-, gold, or household articles from the petitioner. The respondent further denied all the allegations of cruelty and contended that right from the inception of marriage the petitioner had no interest in the marital life.

b) Due to mental stress, the respondent suffered a cardiac problem in October, 2013 and underwent an angiogram. The Respondent denied deserting the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner voluntarily left the matrimonial home but the respondent expressed his willingness to take the petitioner back and sought for dismissal of dissolution of marriage and for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

II. POINTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT:

7. The learned Family Court, upon consideration the rival pleadings, framed the following points for determination:

1) Whether petitioner is entitled to the relief of decree of div