No Alimony for Working Wife After 20 Years of Separation; Telangana High Court Awards Rs.25 Lakh to Daughter
- DTN
- Dec 13
- 18 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
Confused about where your case stands?
Get a Preparatory Assessment : Factual, Sharp and Tailored to your situation
📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment.
Download the Visual Carousel (PDF)
Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — Telangana High Court in M. Suchitha v. R.S. Kumareswaran
Telangana High Court - Family Court Appeal (FCA) NO: 122/2015 - Date of Order : 24.11.2025
Justice K Lakshman And Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
M Suchitha (Appellant) Vs. R S Kumareswaran (Respondent)
Appeal: Appeal by wife challenging the order dated 25.03.2015 in OP No.1006 of 2008 (old OP No.83 of 2006) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District granting decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage dated 06.08.2000.
Brief Facts: The husband filed the aforesaid OP No.1006 of 2008 under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Husband’s contentions:
i. His marriage was performed on 06.08.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs.
ii. It was an arranged marriage, and they were blessed with a female child on 02.01.2004.
iii. The wife has joined the husband for a period of one month immediately after marriage at Rajampeta and later she came back to Hyderabad and never visited him at Rajampeta.
iv. The wife refused to join him despite he bought a flat near to the wife’s parents' house.
v. Due to elders intervention, she joined the husband during the month of March, 2003 and again she left the husband during May, 2003.
vi. The husband was not informed of the birth of the child and he was not permitted to see the wife and child.
vii. The wife has deserted the husband from May, 2003 till date i.e. more than two years eight months without any plausible reason.
viii. Wife has filed false cases against the husband, his sister and brother-in-law for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 499, 304-A and 501 of IPC. The Investigating Officer could not find any cogent evidences and has filed charge sheet only under Section 498-A of IPC, read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
ix. The wife even filed a false case against the husband alleging that he tried to kidnap his own daughter but the same was not made out.
x. The wife has submitted a petition with the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department, in which the husband is working as an employee, that he is evading the arrest in crime registered for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and requested to suspend the husband from services. She also submitted similar petition to Joint Director (Animal Husbandry) that the husband’s sister and her husband are evading arrest under section 498-A of IPC.
xi. The wife has allegedly repeated that younger sister of the husband is "mentally ill, mentally sick and "psychzoprehnic" and abused the husband’s sister's state of mind.
Wife’s contentions:
i. After marriage on 06.08.2000, the wife lived with the husband at Rajampet and Hyderabad because of her employment, but did not desert the husband.
ii.The husband and his sister harassed her by demanding additional dowry and gold.
iii. The husband's sister, her husband, and other relatives interfered and created disputes between them to separate her from the husband.
iv. They used to abuse her, beat her and thrown her out of the house.
v. The husband bought a flat and other needs with the income of the wife and the money provided by her parents and later fraudulently transferred the said flat in his name.
vi. During pregnancy, the husband forced the wife to undergo abortion after knowing that the foetus was female and ill-treated her for giving birth to a girl child on 02.01.2004.
vii. After delivery, the husband demanded money from the wife's parents for completing his flat and his behaviour caused the wife’s mother to fall seriously ill with paralysis.
viii. The husband demanded 10 Lakhs to be deposited in the name of the child and even tried to kidnap the child from the wife's office on 22.12.2005.
ix. The husband himself deserted the wife several times, though reconciliation took place on 09.04.2005, later in the month of November 2005, he again drove her out of the house. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the petition filed by the husband.
Initially, husband had filed the aforesaid OP under section 13 (1) (ib) of the Act, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion but later he has amended to 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The wife also filed additional counter in the said OP contending that all the new allegations introduced by the husband in the amendment petition are afterthoughts. None of the said allegations were pleaded earlier, and they are brought in only to improve his case belatedly and to prolong the proceedings after she sought to place additional material on record.
In order to prove the case of the husband, he himself examined as PW.1 and also examined his neighbour and friend as PWs.2 and 3 respectively on his behalf, and marked Ex. P1 to P28, whereas the wife herself examined as RW1 and got examined her father and her cousin as RWs.2 and 3 on her behalf and also marked Exs. R1 to R58.
After hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 25.03.2015 learned Judge, Family Court allowed the said OP granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage held on 06.08.2000 between the parties.
Family Court held that:
i. The wife's allegations of cruelty were not substantiated by evidence, and her separate living was without reasonable cause.
ii. The evidence showed that there was no love or affection between the parties and they had been living separately for long, which the court viewed as a complete breakdown of marital relationship.
iii. Both parties were educated, employed, and financially independent, yet unable to adjust with each other, indicating incompatibility and loss of matrimonial harmony. Complaints and documents filed by parties showed animosity and unwillingness to continue marital life.
iv. Wife did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights, showing no intention to resume cohabitation.
v. Relationship between parties had completely broken down with no possibility of living together.
vi. The wife is living away from the husband since November 2005.
Challenging the said order granting decree of divorce, the wife preferred the present appeal.
Observations of the Hon’ble High Court:
The aforesaid rival submissions would make it clear that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the parties on 06.08.2000 and that it is an arranged marriage as per Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a female child on 02.01.2004 out of their lawful wedlock. Perusal of contents of the petition in OP No.1006 of 2008 would reveal that the parties are employees working prior to their marriage i.e. Husband was working as Excise Inspector at Rajampet and Wife was working at Hyderabad as a lecturer and later joined as Scientist in DRDL, Hyderabad.
Presently, Husband is working as Excise Superintendent and Wife is working as Scientist in DRDL, Hyderabad.
It is the specific contention of the husband that the wife has deserted him since May 2003, stating that the documents marked clearly show the animosity of the wife against him and that she does not like him.
As discussed above, the husband had filed the aforesaid OP under Section - 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, 1955 against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, he examined himself as PW.1, his neighbor as PW.2 and friend as PW.3 and marked Exs. P1 to P28 documents. To disprove the same, the wife examined herself as RW.1, her father as RW.2 and marked Exs. R1 to R58 documents.
The husband narrated the cruel acts and desertion in the aforesaid OP. According to him, the wife deserted him since May 2003. Husband contended that he accidentally came to know about the wife's delivery when he visited a day before, and though he went to Swapna Nursing Home at Chaitanyapuri on 02-01-2004, he was not permitted by the wife to enter her room or to see the child. But the wife has specifically denied and stated in her counter that the husband had full knowledge of her pregnancy and delivery, but he never cared to attend or provide any assistance during that period. She further contended that only her parents bore all the expenses incurred towards delivery.
The wife in her counter stated that the sister of the husband, used to pick up quarrels with her every time when she visited Hyderabad as she never liked the wife being transferred to Hyderabad and her being an employee. She further contended that the said husband’s sister used to bring another sister of the husband who was suffering from mental sickness, to their house and demand that she should take care. The wife also contended that the sisters used to beat her and harassed her. The wife filed several complaints against the husband, including the complaint lodged to the police and the officer of the husband and his sisters about the pendency of the criminal cases filed by her against the husband.
PW-1 in his cross examination admitted that he does not know whether the wife secured employment in DRDL, Hyderabad as a scientist in the year December, 2001. He has further admitted that he got transferred to Hyderabad on the ground that wife is working in Hyderabad. He denied that he has borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the father of wife to book a flat in the name of the wife and took three lakhs and registered the flat in the name of the wife. He further admitted that he did not neck out the wife from his company. He denied suggestion that whenever he was visiting the in-laws house, they were ill-treating him on several occasions. He has further admitted that after filing the aforesaid O.P by him, the wife has filed a criminal case under sections 498-A, 420, 501 of IPC. He has admitted that he did not make any fixed deposit in the name of his daughter.
PW-2, in his evidence deposed that he is neighbour of the husband and working as Excise Inspector at Anantapur. During the cross examination, he stated that he did not file any identity proof and also the address proof as neighbour of the husband.
PW.3 in his cross examination admitted that he knows the parties prior to their marriage. Wife has got appointment only after her marriage. He does not know whether RW. 2 has paid an amount of 50,000/- on demand of Rs.2,00,000/- by the family of the husband at the time of marriage. He stated that the distance between the husband and wife's parental house is about half kilometer, he has worked as Inspector of Excise from 2003 to 2006 at Hyderabad and he does not know if PW-1 has necked out RW-1 in the month of November, 2005.
During the cross examination, RW-1 categorically admitted that one of the conditions for the marriage is that the husband should get transferred to Hyderabad. She admitted that soon after one month of the marriage, she had to come back to Hyderabad to join her employment. But she did not desert him in May, 2003, as alleged. She did not know the final result of the complaint given by her for kidnaping of the child by the husband. She also categorically admitted that she has given a complaint to the higher officials of the husband that due to his actions, she has lost her mother and also mentioned that there is a life threat to herself and her child from husband. She has requested the Department to take action against the Husband upon the complaint and does not remember if she has given the copy of the complaint to the Minister, Excise and Prohibition. She has admitted that she gave a legal notice to the Department of Animal Husbandry against her sister-in-law who was employed in the said department. She has also given legal notice to S.V. University Tirupati against the brother-in-law of the husband. She has mentioned in the said notice that they have committed offences under Section 498-A, 420 and 501 of IPC. She further admitted that after filing of the aforesaid OP, she has lodged complaints against her Husband, Sister-in-law and her husband. According to her, husband has kept his sister, who is mentally sick at her house only to harass the wife. She admitted that her gross salary is about 42,000/- per month during the year 2011 and she is residing separately from her husband. She has not given any notice to her husband demanding restitution of conjugal rights as she was staying at her matrimonial house during the period when husband got issued legal notice.
RW-2 in his cross examination admitted that during the first six months there are no differences between the parties. The parties are not in happy terms since the date of marriage and he also stated that he does not know the correct period how long they have lived happily. He stated that the husband's sisters interfered in the marital life and created problems, while denying the suggestion that they ever obstructed the husband access to the child.
RW2 further admitted that he had assisted in filing police complaints and supported his daughter in legal proceedings. He also stated that it is not mentioned in Ex. R52 (apology letter) if it was executed by husband admitting his folly and requesting for apology. He also admitted that his son-in-law has not taken an amount ranging from Ten thousand to Three Lakhs from him or wife for completion of the flat. When a suggestion was given to RW-2 with regard to payment of 50,000/- towards first instalment for purchase of the flat to the husband, RW-2 has categorically admitted that neither he, nor his daughter has paid the said amount to husband. RW-2 also stated that in the month of October 2003, his daughter was thrown out from the house. He also stated that in the month of November 2005 his son-in-law has necked out his daughter. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he has paid an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- towards dowry and furniture, and according to him, he has paid the said amount from his and his wife's savings.
The aforesaid evidence would reveal that there are differences between PW.1 and RW.1 right from the initial stage of marriage, more particularly, after the birth of the child. According to the wife, the husband has necked her out in the month of November, 2005 and according to husband, she has deserted him since May, 2003 onwards.
Perusal of the aforesaid evidence would reveal that both the parties are staying separately with effect from the year 2005.
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 status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh.
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 its faults and frailties. It is not possible in 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 other, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration as observed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita.
Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli.
The appellant and the respondent were at loggerheads right from the inception of their marriage. The marriage never took off. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage for the last twelve years, the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The marriage is virtually shattered and has become a dead wood. The allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other establish that there is no further chance of a rapprochement. The appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances of cruelty meted out on him by the respondent as held by the Apex Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna.
Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. 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 held by the Apex Court in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy.
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.
Perusal of record would reveal that the husband had filed the aforesaid petition vide OP.No.1006 of 2008 in the year 2008. It was allowed on 25.03.2015. Assailing the said order, wife preferred the present Appeal in the year 2015. The parties are staying separately from 2005 i.e., since last 20 years.
In Naveen Kohli (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:
"72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.
73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute.
74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, 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 refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact.
76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be 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."
As discussed above, the parties are staying separately from 2005 onwards i.e., since last 20 years. Their daughter is 21 years now. It is not in dispute that the wife brought up the child. According to the, the husband is not paying the maintenance as awarded by the learned Magistrate in M.C No. 238 of 2008 and according to husband he has been paying maintenance regularly.
On Perusal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, it is evident that the marriage deteriorated due to persistent misunderstandings, interference from family members, and growing distrust between the spouses. There is specific allegation against husband that he has kidnapped the child, wife lodged a complaint against the husband. However during cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not have any information with regard to status of the said complaint.
There is also no dispute that wife has lodged complaint with higher officials of Husband. She has also lodged a complaint against husband's sister and also her husband. She got issued legal notice to the Department of husband's sister and her husband who was working in S.V. University at the relevant point of time. The said complaints were marked as Ex P.1 - FIR No. 970 of 2006 dated 28.09.2006, Ex. P.2 - charge sheet dated 30.06.2007 in Crime No. 970 of 2006 filed against husband, his sister and her husband for the offences under section 498-A of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Ex. P.4 - report of Inspector of Police P.S kanchanbagh, submitted to Asst. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city. Ex. P.6 to P.8 and P.10 - the legal notices issued by wife's counsel to the higher officials of the husband seeking action against husband on the ground that he has involved in criminal cases and anticipatory bail applications filed by him was dismissed. Ex. P.9 - letter dated, 2.11.2007 submitted by wife to the Director of Enforcement, Prohibition and Excise Hyderabad with a request to initiate disciplinary action against the Husband by placing him under suspension immediately.
Thus, she has made serious allegations against her husband, his sister and her husband. She has requested her husband's higher officials to initiate disciplinary action against him and by placing him under suspension.
It is also apt to note that vide Ex. R7 and R.52 apology letters, husband stated that he has troubled his wife and indeed he made her walk away from his house by hurting her mentally by using filthy and unparliamentarily language. He has also mentioned the said unparliamentary language specifically in Ex. R.7 apology letter. In Ex. R.52, he has specifically stated that he abused the parents of his wife and left the house scolding his wife many times. He will not repeat the same.
It is also apt to note that Ex. R.13 is the letter given by baby care centre to the wife alleging about kidnapping of the child by her husband. Ex. R.14 is the complaint lodged by wife to the Police Kanchanbagh P.S alleging attempt to commit kidnap by Husband.
There is also a serious allegation against the wife that she denied him the access to the child. However, he failed to examine any witness to prove the same. It is apt to note that both PWs.2 and 3 are working in the same Department and their evidence is of no use to the husband to prove the said cruelty and desertion.
The material thus shows that both sides contributed to the strained relationship i.e the husband by failing to maintain a harmonious domestic atmosphere and the wife by escalating disputes through repeated complaints and by not making any independent effort to resume cohabitation. Overall, the quarrels appear to have stemmed from cumulative misunderstandings, interference of relatives, and lack of effective communication, ultimately leading to a complete breakdown of the marital bond.
During the course of the hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that husband is working as Superintendent, Prohibition and Exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Wife is working as a Scientist in DRDL, Hyderabad. They are not interested in leading marital life. We have directed both the counsels to get instructions on the same. Learned counsel appearing for the wife, on instructions, submitted that the wife is not interested in joining her husband.
However the Husband submitted a print out of WhatsApp' message sent by the Husband, stating that he is happy to know that his daughter, is pursuing graduation in the USA, but the demand of Rs.1 crore towards her educational expenses is wholly exorbitant and beyond his financial capacity. He has been regularly paying Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance without default and has also secured the child's future through two LIC policies (Nos. 647787861 and 647787893) of Rs.10 lakhs, maturing on 30.08.2027, with accrued bonuses and annual survival benefits of Rs.55,000/- payable to her for her life. He further submits that about 300 grams of gold jewellery given at the time of marriage is with the wife and may be directed to be handed over to the child. The husband states that he cannot meet any higher financial demand due to heavy litigation expenses, frequent travel, the lifelong responsibility of his chronically ill-sister, his upcoming retirement with limited benefits, and his own long-standing diabetic condition requiring significant monthly medical costs.
Thus, there is no possibility of re-union of parties. As discussed supra, there is strained relation between the parties. They are aged 55 and 44 respectively at present. Their daughter is 21 years at present and she is pursuing her Masters in USA.
It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court can dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, it can be considered as an aspect along with other aspects while deciding the present Appeal.
In the present case, the parties are staying separately since last 20 years. There is no possibility of their re-union. During the period of the said separation only, the husband filed the aforesaid OP. On consideration of the said evidence, the learned Family Court allowed the said OP filed by the husband vide impugned order dated 25.03.2015 by dissolving the marriage between the parties dated 06.08.2000.
As discussed supra, the efforts made by the husband seeking visitation rights were not successful. It is also apt to note that neither wife nor husband filed Petitions seeking Restitution of Conjugal rights.
As stated above, the wife brought up her daughter till date, and the child is studying in USA. Wife bore the said expenditure. There is dispute with regard to payment of maintenance.
As discussed supra, wife is also an employee. She is working as Scientist in DRDL, Hyderabad. Therefore, she can sustain on her own. There is no need of awarding maintenance and permanent alimony to her. However, considering the fact that wife brought up the child and sent her to USA for pursuing Masters. Therefore we have to award some amount to the child towards her maintenance.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the daughter of the parties, is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,00,000 - (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) towards her maintenance and the husband is liable to pay the same.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 in OP No.1006 of 2008 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the wife with the husband is confirmed, and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) is awarded to their daughter towards maintenance. The husband shall pay the said amount within three (03) months from today, failing which the wife is entitled to take steps in accordance with law. The said amount is towards full and final settlement of the claim of their daughter. In view of the same, daughter shall not make any claim against her father including his properties and retirement benefits etc. However, daughter is also entitled for two LIC policies bearing Nos. 647787861 and 647787893 and husband shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the said amount is credited to her account on maturity.
This appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.