Sn Jusrjce K. Lakshman) Heard Sri Vrjay Asrith, learned counsel representing sri v. Raghunath

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAM ILY COURT APPEAL {FCA) NO: 92 OF 2014 Appeal under section 19 of the Hindu ft/arriage Act, aggrieved by the order dated 12-5-2014 passed in O.P.No.1194 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad. Between: GAYATLIBI DEVI, Wo. G,satyaprakash Rao, Occ Employee in LlC, R/o. 16- 11-51 1 lDl224, 2nd Floor, Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagdr-60. AND APPELLANT G.SATYAPRAKASH RAO, S/o. Late G.Ramakrishna Rao, Occ lnspector in Customs and Central Excise, R/o. H.NO. 16-7-220, Azampura, Hyderabad. RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant i Sri Vijay Asrith for SRl. V RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent SRI AKKAM ESHWAR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT /..,., THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAMII,Y COURT APPEAL No.92 of 2Ol4 {JJDG!{ENT: per the Hon'b;e Sn Jusrjce K. Lakshman) Heard Sri Vrjay Asrith, learned counsel representing sri v. Raghunath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the instructions, submitted that the respondent, respondent is no more and he died on 1o.o r.2o2s itself.

3. The appellant had filed the petition under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent herein, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

4. To prove the said . cruelty, the appellant herein examined herself as Pw1 and also examined sri R. Narasimha Rao, her maternal uncle as pw2. Ex.pl to P8 documents were exhibited by her. To disprove the same, the respondent herein examined as RWl and t t\g 2 Ex.Rl & R2 were exhibited. On consideration of the eviclence, both oral and document.ry, uide impugr:ed order, da.ted L2.05.2O14, the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. dismissed the said petition, holding that the appellant herein 'faileC to prove the cruelty. Challenging the said order, dated L2.O5.2OL4, the appellant herein preferred the present appeal

5. As discussed supra, the respondent is no more.

6. Sri Vijay Asrith, learned counsel for the respondent would contended that the appellant is not interested in claiming the retiral benefits or share over the properties of the respondent. According to him, the learned Family Court, instead of allowing the said O.P. filed by the appellant, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the cruelty. In paragraph No.24 of the impugned order, dated 12.05.2O14. Learned family Court observed that the appellant stayed.with the respondent, so it amounts that the appellant condoned the lapses on the part of the respondent. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant failed to prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent. Therefore, he / / ,/ 3 seeks modification of the impugned order to the effect tlrat the appellant herein proved the cruelty against the respondent and she was subjected to cruelty

7. As discussed supta, the appellant hleo the aloresaid C.P., seeking dissolution of marriage against the respondent on the ground of cruelty, burden of proving the sam" ,r." on her and she has to plead and prove the same by producing the reliable evidence. According to the appellant, she has also filed an application uncler Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, in which, the learned Family Court had passed an interim order in D.V.C.No.49 of 2O11 (marked as Ex.P3). The respondent had also filed Ex.Rl-complaint to the Protection Officer, dated 2O.O4.2Oll lodged by the t..t a appellant and Ex.R2- O.P card of Care Hospital relating to the appellant herein. Thus the appellant herein has to ( ( plead and prove the cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. On consideration of the said aspects only, the learned Family Court had dismissed the said O.P. filed by the appellant herein. Therefore, she cannot now contend that the learned Family Court dismissed the said O.P., 4 without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence record

8. As discussed supra, the impugned order was passed on consicieration cf the evidence, both oral and documentary. There is no i. the finding of the "..,r, learned Family court that the appellant herein failed to prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent. It is a reasoned order and well founded. The appellant herein failed to make out any case. Therefore, this appeal is n liable'to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shatl be no order as to costs. SD/.K AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. The Judge, Additional Family court, Hyderabad. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRl. V RAGHUNATH Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED i2311012025 JUDGMENT FCA.No.92 of 2014 J 't HES ,J 0 3 ,i,li 2[?$ * * DISMISSING THE APPEAL t\ { Pr\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT c__--- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 92 OF 2014 Between GAYATHRI DEVI, Wo. G.Satyaprakash Rao, Occ Employee in LlC, R/o. 16- 1 1 -51 1 lDl224, 2nd Floor, Shalivahana Nagar, Dilsukhnagar-60. AND APPELLANT G.SATYAPRAKASH RAO, S/o. Late G.Ramakrishna Rao, Occ Customs and Central Excise, R/o. H.NO. 16-7-220, Azampura, lnspector in Hyderabad. RESPONDENT Appeal under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, aggrieved by the order dated 12-5-2014 passed in O.P.No.1194 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vijay Asrith, Advocate representing Sri V. Raghunath for the appellant and of Sri Akkam Eashwar for the Respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. 116-,tc .oQy // To

1. The Judge, Additional Family Court, Hydeabad. 2. Two CD Copies. w SD/-K AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR & 9€,CirhnoFqgt&. ,r ,/ HIGH COURT DATED i2311012025 DECREE FCA.No.92 of 2014 DTSMISSING THE APPEAL