Ravirala Madhavi v. Bgviralq Satyam

customs. 1t. After the marriage, the appellant joined th, company of the respondent. Out of their wedloclq they were blessed witt L female and male child, namely Ms. Sona Chandini and Mr. yrr, araj. lv. Thereafter, disputes arose between the par.i )s on account of conduct of the appellant as she was in the ha rit of dominating the respondent as she is a graduate in sci: rce, whereas the respondent studied up to SSC. The appellant used to demand money lor unnecessary expendituie. Since the respondent is workin6; rs a technician in Photo Studio, he is urable to meet her luxury r oney demands- vl. She went to her parents' house at Hyderabac n the year 2005 and refused to rejoin his company. However, r the intervention of elders, to lead_ happy marital life, both the rarties agreed to live together and accordingly reduced ir to writing undertaking on I 3.03.2005. /l 3 KT"J & VRKRJ FCA No-4 of 20 14 v[. Even then, there was no change in the attitude of the appellant and went to her parcnts' house in May, 2005 without informing the respondent. vul. Despite the efforts put forth by the respondent including issuance of notice in September, 2006, the appellant did not join his company. The appellant filed a maintenance petition under Section - 20 lx. (l) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act' 2005 and the same was registered as Pre Litigation Case No'3 of 2006 and an award was passed on 30'12'2006 by the Lok Adalat, wherein the parties agreed to live together and the respondent undertook to pay an amount of Rs'1,5001 towards maintenance to her and children. x. On arrivat of ttre appetlant to the house of the respondent, it was found ttrat she was carrying pregnancy' Therefore, lre got examined her in Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Nalgonda on

03.02.2N7- After getting a lab repor! the doctor opined that the appetlant was carrying prcgnancy of six (06) weeks' Ttrerefore, the respondent entertained a doubt for the said pregnancy and questioned her as to how she was carrying six ) ) 4 KLJ & VRK&' FCA No-4 of20l4 weeks of pregnancy when she rejoined hi society only on t7.0t.2007. xi. Therefore, the appellant gave a report on (,t .O2.2007 alleging demand of additional dowry by the respono :nt and the same was registered as Crime No.26 of 2007 tz Women police Station, Nalgonda for the offences under Se< tions _ 49gA and 506 of IPC and Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowl prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the police Laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No.53 of 2007. However, it was ended in acquittal. xil. She has also filed a petition under Section _ .)-i of Cr.p.C. vide M.C. No.282 of ZOOT before the learned . r dge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking maintenir rce, wherein an amount of Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be paid b r the respondent to her and an amount of Rs.1,500/_ each to thc c rildren.

5. The appellant herein filed counter denying he claim of the respondent on the following grounds: 5 KI.J & VRK&J FCA No.'r o{2014 1

11. At tlre time of . marriage, her parens gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry apart from ottrer house-hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner' Few months tlrereafter, tlre respondent started harassing her for additionat dowry. In pursuanoe thereof' the respondent demanded additionat dowry of Rs't,OO,O0O/- for which he drove heroutofthehousean4therefore,shewascompelledtolive separatelY from the resPondent' She denied about his lavishty spending the amount for lll. unnecessary things. tv. The respondent harassed the appetlant' both mentalty and physically and threatened her that he would contact second rnalTrage. The respondent got one concubine, namely Hyma and always abused her to lcave his company, so that he can marry that woman. The respondent made all false and baseless allegations in the petition with an intention to get divorce from the Court' 1 I 6 KI.J & VRIGJ FCA No.4 ofmt4

6. In order to prove the case of the res tondent herein, he himself examined as pW. I and also examined his :aste elder as pW.2 on his behalf, and got marked Exs.pl to p4, wh :reas the appellant herself examined as RW}, and got examined R\ /s.2 and 3 on her behalf and also marked Ex.Rl. 7 ' After hearing both sides and on c.r .sideration of the evidence, both oral and documenta4r, vide order dated 30.01.2013, leamed Judge, Family Court allowed the said O.p 3ranting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage held on 3 l .03 . i 000 between the parties on the following grounds: i. The appellant left the company of the resp< ndent voluntarily and filed criminal cases with false allegation: to harass him, it amounts to mental cruelty. ii. The appellant did not prefer any appeal aga nst the acquittal judgment iii. The appellant did not prove the illegal ntimacy of the respondent with Hyma. Y The appellant herself admitted that she go. abortion of six weeks pregnancy, but she.deposed that it is nformed to the 7 KLJ & VRKRJ FCA No.4 of20l4 resPondent which was denied by him. All these facts would amount to mental cruelty to th€ rcspord€nt. v. Both the parties are living separately before frling the petition and there is no chance of re-union to lead marital life' vi. There were no cordiat retations between the parties'

8. Challenging the said decree of divorce, the appellant - wife filed the present appeal.

9. I.A. No.l of 2025 is fited by the appellant - wife to receive Photostat copy of order in M.C. No.282 of 2007, as additional evidence. tt is the specific contention of the appetlant - wife that she and her children have fited a petition under Section - 125 of Cr'P'C' against the respondent - husband seeking maintenance' Vide otder datedo2.o4.2ng,leamedAdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudgefor trial of Jubilee Hills car Bomb Btast case-cum-Additionat Family Court-cum-)Oil[ Additionat Chief Judge' Hyderabad, ordered an amount of Rs.2,fi)0/- @upees Two Thousand Only) per month to the wife, Rs.l,50O/- @upees One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) per month each to the children. There is no challenge to the said order' However, leamed counsel for the respondent did not dispute the said 1 ) \ \ 8 KLJ A VRKRJ FCA No.4 of20t4 fact and the order. In ttre light of the same, I.a. No.l of 2025 is ordered.

10. The aforesaid rival submissions wou d reveal that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent v .as performed on 31.03.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an: rranged marriage. They were blessed with two (02) chitdren out of I reir wedlock i.e., Ms. Sona Chandini and Mr. yuvaraj, who are aged reven (07) and six (06) years, respectively at the time of impugned orrh r. Now, they are 23 and 22 years respectivery. At the time of firing he aforesaid op, the respondent - husband was 3g years and novr he is 56 years, whereas the appellant - wife was 3l years and now s re is 46 years. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a Technic : n in Usha Kiran Digital Colour Lab, I l. As discussed above, the respondent _ husb ,nd has filed the aforesaid petition against the appellant seeking dissoll :ion of marriage on the grounds of cruerty and desertion. Therefore, b.r .den lies on him to plead and prove the same.

12. In the aforesaid petition, he has specific rlly stated that misunderstandings arose between him and his wife. E is u,i fe used to ,/1 .1 9 KLJ & VRKRJ rcA No.4 of 2014 go to her Parcntal house at Hyderabad very @uently in spite of the instructions by husband not to go very @uently and wtlenever she used to go to Hyderabad, stre never retums to his company unless he takes back her to his house at Nalgonda' She was in ttre habit of dominating him on the ground ttnt she is a graduate in Science' whereas he studied up to ssc. She used to spend money above the levet earning capacity of the husband' She used to demand money very frequently to meet her unnecessary expenditure' He was working as Technician in Photo Studio and he was unable to satisff her money demands and luxury wants' Thus, the appetlant herein started harassing him by leaving his company'

13. tn the yeat 2o05,she left the company of the husband' He has placed the matter before the caste elders' who advised them to live together to lead marital life happity' Both the parties agreed accordingly and reduced terms into v"ritrng by an undertaking dated 13.03.2005. Thereafter, the wife resumed conjugal society of the husband. But, there is no change in her attitude' She went away to her parental house in May, 2005 without informing the husband ignoring the said undertaking given before the caste elders' He has submitted an application to the President' Nalgonda District l \ .\ \ IO KU & VRXRJ FCA No-4 of 20 t4 Padmashali Sangham, Nargonda on 02.07.2o05. '[ re president caled for reply from the appellant herein. The saic president of the Sangham catled both the par,ties and their elderr for settlement of disputes between them on 09.08.2005. The husb nd and his elders appeared before the President ofthe Sangam on 0J.0g.2005, whereas the wife and her elders did not attend. Therefore the meeting was udjo*med to 16.08.2005, on which date she did r ot come forward. Therefore, the President and Members of the said ii urgam came to an opinion that the appellant - wife was not interesil :d to lead happy marital life with the respondent - husband.

14. Thereafter, he has issued a legal notice in September, 2006 calling her to join his company. Despite receivl .g the said legal notice, she did not join his company and on the oC er hand, she has filed an application under Section - 12 of the prorr ction of women fiom Domestic Violence Act,2005 before the pemr nent Lok Adalat at Metropolitan Ciry Criminal Courrs, Hyderabad. (t L 22.12.2A06, the same was registered as pre Litigation Case No.3 of 1006. An award dated 30.12.2006 has been passed parties have als r *greed to live together. The husband undertook to pay an amount r f Rs.1,500/_ per month towards maintenance to her and the children. \ccordingly, the It KLJ & VRKR,J FCA No.a of20 l4 wife arrived to the house of the husband. She was carrying pregnancy. Therefore, he got examined the wife in Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Nalgonda on O3.02.2N7. After getting a lab report the doctor has opined that she was carrying six (06) weeks pregnancy. Therefore, the husband entertained a doubt for the said pregnancy and questioned the wife as . to how she was carrying six weeks of pregnancy, when she re-joined his society only on 17.01.2007. There was no explanation from her. Then the husband started entertaining a doubt about the patemity of the chitd in the womb and she has filed a complaint before the Women Police Station, Nalgonda on 06.02.2007, who in tum registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2007.

15. She has also filed an application under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C. vr'& M.C.No.282 of 2007 seeking maintenance. The same was also allowed in part. The respondent cartre to know that the appellant got aborted ttrc third isstre at Hyderabad without intimation to him. Ex.P4 is the medical prescription dated 03.02.2N7. Thus, she got aborted the pregnancy apprehendirqg that the patemity of the said issue will be questioned by the respondent through DNA test and her conduct will come to open. After completion of investigation in the said crime, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the j t-. t2 KLJ A VRKRJ FCA No.a of20l4 husband and it was taken on file vide C.C. No.53 t'2007- The same was ended in acquittal vide judgmerfi dated 2g.01.2( 09. However, the appellant did not prefer any appeal and, therefore. he said judgment attained furality.

16. As discussed above, to prove the said cnu lty and desertion, the respondent - husband examined himself as pw. rnd caste elder as PW.2. Both of them spoke on the same lines. N<rr ring was elicited from them during cross-examination. perusal of re c rrd would reveal that the wife has lodged the aforesaid complaint alii inst the husband for the offence under Sections - 4984 and 506 of Ip( and Sections _ 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was r nded in acquittal vide Ex-Pl. She has approached the permanent Lo< Adalat by filing an application in PLA No. 1067 of 2A06, and the Lol \dalat passed an Award under Ex.P2. She has also filed an appllcatir,r under Section _ 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic lirlence Act, and leamed IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magisrr rte, Hyderabad, passed Ex.P3 order. .11. It is relevant to note that after Ex.p2 _ Award. of L;ok_ Adalat, the appellant - wife joined the company 01- the respondent. l3 KI.J & VRKRJ FcA No.{ of20l1 She was carrying pn€nancy of six (06) weeks. He got suspicion on the appellant - wife. Thereafter, she got the said pregnancy aborted. To prove the same, the husband has filed Ex.P4, dated 03-02.2007 -

18. It is also not in dispute that PW.2 has issued notice dated

02.08.2005 to the appellant - twfe vide Ex.Rl with a reqr:est to attend the rneeting. Neither ttre wife, nor her elders aftended the said meeting. PW.2 specifically deposed about the said fact. Nothing was eticited from him during cross-examination.

19. Thus, the aforesaid facts would reveal that there are strained relation between the appellant and the respondent. They are rcsiding separately from 2005 onwards.

20. As discussed above, burden lies on the husband to plead and prove the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. In the present case, he has pleaded and proved the said grounds as spoken to by him and PW.2. The wife herself admitted about todging of the aforesaid comptaint and fiting of an application under Section - 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violencrc Act. 2l . It is the specific contention of the appellant - wife that she underwent abortion informing the same to the respondent - husband' )\ \ t4 KI.J & VRKRJ FCA No.4of20l4 It is also her specific contention that she never de.r:rted her husband and only due to his unbearable harassment she was compelled to live separately from him along with her.children. Tlr : hu563rr6 u1*uys used to harass her, both mentatly and physically. .(il e has also further stated that as therc was no change in the attitude c I her husband, she was compelled to place the matter before the comrr: rnity elders, who convened a meeting in the year ZOO2 at Hyderaba, and found fault with. the husband. They have also advised him to ta re his wife. But, she has not examined any of the said elders and s re examined her matemal and paternal uncle.

22. Itis also not in dispute that the husbancl s udied up to SSC and the wife completed her graduation i.e., B.Sc. 1 is also a reason for differences between the parties. She admitted th,: said facts during her cross-examination. During cross-examination, r he has admitted that her father used to stay in Dubai and that she usec to stay with her mother. Since her father was staying in Abroad, she vas having much attachment towards her mother. Whenever she has g I re to Hyderabad unless her husband personally came and get her back r : Nalgo_nda, slE used to stay with her mother. Her husband used to at,.se her and used to beat her. Therefore, she used to go to her mother However, she // I t5 KI.J & VRIRJ rcA No.4 of 2014 has not mentioned the said facts in her counter. She has also admitted that she Ieft the company ofher husband in Febnrary, 2005 due to his harassment and in March, 2005, caste elders came to her to mediate between her and her husband. On 13.03.2005 caste elders pacified and decided that she has to join her husband's company.

23. Though the wife atleged that her husband used to maintain illegat intimacy with an employee, namely Hym4 working in the said Digital Lab, she failed to prove the same. She has not examined any witness to the said effect and she has not hled any document to prove the same. tn May, 2005, she along with her children joined her mother at Hyderabad on the ground that her husband quarreled with her and tfuown her out. She has also admitted about her husband placrng the matter before the Padmashali Sangam and that PW.2 issued notice i.e., Ex.Rl. Though she has stated that she could not attend the said meeting in view of hospitalization of her son, she has not mentioned the said fact in her counter. She has admitted about her husband issuing tegal notice in September,2006. She gave reply, but she has not filed the same. She has not mentioned the said fact in the counter. She has also admitted about passing of Ex.P2 Award by the permanent Lok Adalat. 1 r6 Kr-,J & VR(XJ FCA No.4 ofAnl4

24. RWs.2 and 3, matemal and paternal unc[, s of the appellant - wife, deposed with regard to the respondent harar;: ing the appellant. Both of them specifically deposed that the hust,i nd is financially sound person, he is having four (04) mulgies/shoyr at Clock Tower Centre, which is heart of Nalgonda Town in whicjr he used to run a lab with approximate investnent of Rs.50{0 Lakh r in the name of Usha Kiran Lab. They have not filed any docum,: rt. RW.2 during cross-examination admitted that he does not kno v the details ol immovable properties of the husband, and so al:rr the investment rnade by him in the said tab. RW.3 also admitted v ith regard to the sarne. ltre has admitted about terrnination of f,r rgnancy by the appellant - wife, but it is due to ilt-health.

25. Once the parties have separated and tt: separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of th, ,m has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that .he marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should ser i rusly make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not tr : withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unwo kabte marriage l7 KLJ & VRXR,J rcA No.{ of2rl.t which has tong ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.

26. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social stafus, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghoshr. 27 . Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all is fauls and frailties. It is not possible h every case to pin point to an act of "cruelty" or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each otlrcr, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court '. lzoozylsccsrr .\ t8 KLJ & VRKR'I FCA No..{ of20t4 must take into consideration as observed by th : Apex Court in Ra kesh Raman v. Sm6 Kavita2.

28. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, r zhich is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or ph ysical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their e<x nomic and social conditions and their culture and human values ,r hich they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its owrL merits as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohlir.

29. The appellant and the rgspondent u,er ] at loggerheads right from the lnception. of their marriage. The miu riage never took off. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage i ,r the last twelve years, the couple was unable to patch up their lifferences. The marriage is virtually shattered and has become a lead wood. The allegations and counter allegations levelled ag.l nst each other establish that there is no ftrrther chance of a rapl rochement. The appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances rf cruelty meted '. 2o2J ntR 1sc 2 ll< '. (2006) 4 scc t58 t9 KLJ & VRKRJ FCA No.,l of2014 out on him by the respondent as held by ttre Apex Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghnaa.

30. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no retum. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce as hetd by the Apex Court in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathys.

31. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to cruelty or not.

32. Perusal of record would reveal that the respondent - husband had fil€d the aforesaid petition vi"de OP No.27 of 2009 in the year 2O09. It was allowed on 30.01.2013. Assaiting the said order, MIMJ/KEvI5os/202 t n. ' lzoos; z scc lst 20 KIJ & VRKIU FCA No.4 of20l4 - appellant - wife preferred the present Appeal in th r year 2014. The parties are staying separately from 2005 i.e., since la ;t 20 years.

33. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohh6, the ,\:ex Court held as follows: "72. Once the parties have separated r rd the sepiuation has continued for a suffrcient k:t gth of time and one of them has presented a petit cn for divorce, it can well be presumed that the nr rriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, hould seriously make an endeavour to reconc i e the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakc < wn is irreparable, then divorce should not be wLt rheld. The consequences of preservation in las, rf the unworkablc marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of 6 reater misery for the parties.

13. A law of divorce based mainly on ti ult is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. I Inder the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; rli rorce courts are presented concrete instances oi' h rman behaviour as bring the instiurtion of marrial5 into disrepute. ". 1zoo6; + scc s,sa 2l KI.J & VRXRJ FCA No.4 of2ol'{

74. We have bsen principally imprcssed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it woutd be unrelistic for the law rot to trke notice of that fac! and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair' The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By reftrsing to sever that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the conkary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the padies. 7 5. Public interest demands not only that the rnarried status shoul4 as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintaind but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of satvage, pubtic interest lies in the recogrition of that fact.

76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse car bc compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist."

34. tn view of the above discussion, it is revealed that there was strained relation between the appeltant and the respondent' She \ \ l 22 KLJ & VR(RJ rcA No.a of 2014 has made a serious allegation that the husban,l maintained illicit relation with his colleague, Hyma. It is not in <[r ;pute that both of them were living separately from May,20O5.

35. [t is settled principle that neither Fanr ly Court nor this court can grant decree of divorce on the ground ol' rretrievable break down of marriage, but certainly it is an aspect to bi :onsidered by this Court along with other aspects.

36. As discussed above, at the cost of r:petition, despite panchayats and Ex.P2 - Award passed by Lok Adala , they are staying separately from May, 2005. On consideration of tl : said facts only, the leamed Family Court granted decree of divorc : vrde impugned order. This Court stayed the said impugned order c,r I I . 10.20 t 3. As discussed above, both the appellant and the respon<I, nt are 46 and 56 years at present.

37. As discussed above, the appellant - wift: and her chitdren frled a peition under Section - 125 of Cr.p.C. againsl the respondent _ husband seeking maintenance. Vide order dated 0i. )4.20}g,leamed Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for triar of . ubilee Hi[s car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family ( ourt_cum_XXIII 23 KU A VRKRJ rcA Noa of 2014 Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, ordered an amount of Rs'2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month to the wife, Rs'1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred Onty) per month each to the children. According to learned counsel, ttre respondent has been paying the said amount in compliance with the said order'

38. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that their daughter, namely Ms. Sona Chandini, is suffering from Cancer and she is recovering. Even, husband is also suffering from cancer and he is on treatment. It is the contention of the appellant that she has been providing treahnent to her daughter' It is the contention of the husband that he has also bome the expenditure for the treatment of his daughter. In the light of the same, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of the appellant and the respondent living together and leading marital life happily' They are living separatety from May, 2005. Though the appeltant - wife contended that the respondent invested an amount of Rs'50-60 lakhs in establishing usha Kiran Digital colour Lab and he is owner of four (04) mulgieVshops at Ctock Tower, Natgonda Town, she has not filed any document to prove the same. On consideration of the said aspects 1 24 KI.J & VRKRJ FCA No.4ot20l4 t, only, the leamed Family Court granted decree of dlore- vide impugned order and, there is no error in it. Howr:. er, the trial Court did not grant any permanent alimony to the wife.

39. During the course of hearing, it is broul; rt to the notice of this court that the appelrant - wife and her both cf irdren filed a suit vide O.S. No.253 of 2023 pending on the file of -r nior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for perpetual injunction and granted ,r terim injunction. The same is subsisting. The suit schedule property n the said suit is house bearing Nos.l, 2 and 3 consists of242 squarr yards in Survey No.77, situated at Marriguda Viflage and Mandal, Na gonda Dishict.

40. In the cause title of the Op, the husband lu s mentioned that the appellant herein was a private employee at the elevant point of time. Everi in the cause title of the present appeal, st e has mentioned that she is private employee, but there is no eviden,: : on record with regard to the same. During cross-examination of rv fe, the husband did not elicit anything from her wlth regard to her t mployment and capacity. Adminedly, the appellant _ wife brr rght up both the _1r*rg children. Their daughter is presently aged, 23 1< ars and she is suffering fiom cancer. The wife has to meet the rtr id expendifure, 25 KLJ & VR(RJ FCA No,4 of m11 provide heatment and perform her marriage' The leamed Family Courtdidnotconsiderthesaidaspectsanddidnotawardany permanent alimonY to the wife'

41. In the light of the aforesaid discussion' the impugned order dated30.01.2013ino.P.No.27of20@passedbyleamedJudge,. Famity Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge' Nalgonda' granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with ttre respondent is confirmed, and we are of the opinion that the ) ) \ I appettant - wife is entitted for an amount of Rs'30'00'000/- @upees Thirty Lakhs Only) towards perrnanent alimony from the respondent - husband which includes monthly maintenance awarded to them in the aforesaid MC. The same is towards full and final seftlement of the ctaims of appetlant - wife and her children' The respondent shall pay the said amount within two (02) months from today' failing which the appetlant - wife is entitled to take stePs in accordance with law' On receipt of the aforesaid amount, the appellant - life and her children shalt take atl necessary steps to withdraw the aforesaid suit'

42. The present appeal is accordingty disposed of' [n the circumstances of the case, there shall be no onder as to costs' \ 26 KLJ & VR.KRJ rcA No.4 of 2014 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous application , if any, pending in the appeal case shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY// sl '/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGTSTRAR /:.- SECTION OFFICER Family Court+um-Additional District rnd Sessions Judge,

2. One CC to Sri pasham Ravindra Reddy, Advocate [Ol] JCI 3. One CC to Sri J Suredh Babu, Advocate 1OdUC1 +. Two CD Copies ' 'iv'vwav lvr \ I | To,

1. The Judge, Nalgonda. ABK/Sa lW HIGH COURT DATED: 171111202s JUDGMENT l.A.No.1 ot2025 !n/And FCA.No.4 of 2014 i1 U( a |',,] ril 2nfr :Z I o() i \\"r- a\.* -\? ...r :' .i DISPOSING OF THE FCA 6 3( \ [ 34e41 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY l.A.No.1 ot 2025 ln/And FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 4 OF 2014 Between: Ravirala Madhavi, Wo Satyam, Aged 35 yrs, Occ: Private Employee, Rl/o H.No.7-1-30711 5/A, G-2Floor, Ramya Enclave, Subhash Nagar, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND Ravirala Satyam, S/o Yadagiri, Aged 42 yrs, Occ: Technician in Usha Kiran Digital Colour Lab, Fi./o Bottuguda Locality of Nalgonda Town and District. ...Respondent Appeal under section '19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 30-01-2013 passed in O.P.No.27 of 2009 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Case and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri J Suresh Babu, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Family Court Appeal be and hereby is disposed of. 2. That the impugned order dated 30.01.2013 in O.P. No.27 of 2009 passed by leamed Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is confirmed.

3. That the appellant - wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) towards permanent alimony from the respondent -husband which includes monthly me ntenance awarded to them in the aforesaid MC.

4. That the same is towards full and final seftlen ent of the claims of appellant - wife and her children.

5. That the respondent shall pay the said amount I thin two (02) months from today, failing which the appellant wife is en ifled to take steps in accordance with law.

6. That on receipt of the aforesaid amount, the aprg ellant - wife and her children shall take all necessary steps to withdrarv the aforesaid suit.

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this apc :al. SD/. (. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ;ECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Nalgonda. 2. Two CD Copies ABK /Sa District arrr Sessions Judge, HIGH COURT DATED: 1711112O2s DECREE l.A.No.1 ol 2025 ln/And FCA.No.4 ot 2014 DISPOSING OF THE FCA {llabr