THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003, F.C.A.No.97 of 2005, F.C.A.No.144 of 2005, F.C.A.No.8 of 2007 AND F.C.A.No.39 of 2010 ORALCOMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Honourable Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both sides. 2. Since the parties are one and the same and all the cases are interlinked with each other, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. In all the appeals, appellant is the husband, first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the child. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this common judgment, the appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent will be referred to as “the husband”, “the wife”, and “the child”, respectively. 5. C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 is directed against the order and decree, dated 05.11.2002, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissing O.P.No.568 of 1999, filed by the husband, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage between himself and the wife. 6. C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 of 2003 was filed by the wife in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to herself and the chid. This Court, by interim order, dated 20.02.2004, directed the husband to pay maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and the same was interpreted by the wife that this Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month each to herself and the child. Accordingly, she filed E.P., seeking execution of the said order on the ground that the said amounts are not being paid by the husband. The said E.P., was numbered as E.P.No.1 of 2005 and was allowed by the Court below. However, it is pertinent to note that subsequent to the order passed in C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 of 2004, upon an application being C.M.A.M.P.No.15743 of 2004, filed by the husband, seeking clarification of the order in C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 of 2003, it was clarified that the interim direction to the petitioner therein i.e., the husband, was to pay maintenance to both the respondents therein i.e., the wife and the child, at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, in total, per month. 7. F.C.A.No.144 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.06.2005, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.19 of 2004, wherein and whereby the application filed under Sections 18 (i) and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, seeking maintenance, was decreed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the plaintiffs therein i.e., the wife and the child. It is the grievance of the wife that the said judgment was also not complied with. Therefore, E.P.No.30 of 2005 was filed and the same was dismissed by the executing Court on 24.04.2006. Subsequently, another application E.P.No.10 of 2006 was filed before the Court below, for recovery of maintenance amount granted to them, in O.S.No.No.19 of 2004, by judgment dated 20.06.2005, and the same was ordered by the executing Court on 28.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, F.C.A.No.8 of 2007 has been filed by the husband. 8. F.C.A.No.97 of 2005 is directed against the order and decree, 12.05.2005, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.1 of 2005, which was filed seeking execution of the order passed in C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 of 2003 in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 i.e., for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount and the same was accordingly ordered. 9. F.C.A.No.39 of 2010 is directed against the order and decree, dated 07.09.2009, passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, in M.C.No.16 of 1999, wherein and whereby the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking enhancement of monthly maintenance from Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the petitioners therein i.e., the wife and the child, was ordered, enhancing the monthly maintenance to the wife to Rs.2,500/- per month and to the child to Rs.2,000/- per month, which comes to a total sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. So far as the said order is concerned, there is no grievance as regards the compliance of the same. 10. In the above background of the facts of the case, the main points to be decided in these appeals are:-- (1).Whether divorce can be granted after setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 05.11.2002, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 or not ? (2).Whether the aforesaid orders passed by the Court below, which are the subject matter of F.C.A.Nos.97 and 144 of 2005, 8 of 2007 and 39 of 2010 are valid or not ? (3).What would be the permanent alimony to be paid to the wife by the husband that would be just and reasonable ? 11. The legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the Court below, which are under challenge in F.C.A.Nos.97 and 144 of 2005, 8 of 2007 and 39 of 2010, would depend upon the eventual decision to be taken by this Court in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003. 12. POINT No.1:-- The wife is present before this Court. During the hearing of these appeals, her father, who happened to be an Advocate, made his submissions. The wife also expressed her grievance in various terms before this Court. On many occasions, these appeals came up for hearing before different Benches, and on 11.02.2008, an application has been filed by the wife as “party-in-person”, wherein she expressed her grievance that the husband has not been keen to see the child also and that apart, he has not been paying the maintenance amount that was ordered in M.C.No.16 of 1999. It was her further grievance that various articles worth of considerable amount were given to the husband at the time of marriage. Eventually, she sought for divorce and also to grant permanent alimony to both herself and the child. When this fact was put to the wife, who is present before this Court, during the hearing of the appeals, she categorically stated that it was true and correct that she is inclined to have divorce and also to have permanent alimony both to herself and her daughter. She admitted the fact that she filed a application to this effect before this Court on 11.02.2008. 13. Now, having regard to the statement made by the wife in the application, filed before this Court, on 11.02.208, and also her expression in unequivocal terms in the open Court, acknowledging the statement made in this regard in the said application, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the version of the wife that she is inclined to have dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 14. Therefore, the scope of controversy as regards granting of divorce in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 is almost dispelled in view of the said expression openly made by the wife in the open Court and also the contention in the application, dated 11.02.2008, filed before this Court. Hence, we are of the considered view that C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 is liable to be allowed. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 1 5 . POINT Nos.2 and 3:-- The only controversy that remains, after a positive inclination by the wife to have divorce, is the extent of permanent alimony and quantification of the same. In other words, the next question to be decided is as to what would be the permanent alimony that would be just and reasonable? 16. In this regard, the wife seriously contends that the husband did not comply with the order, dated 20.02.2004, passed by this Court, in C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 of 2003, granting interim maintenance, during the pendency of C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003; that Ex.P.No.1 of 2005 was filed, the same was also ordered by the executing Court and the said amount comes to Rs.1,84,000/- and that the husband also has not been paying the arrears granted in E.P.No.10 of 206, which comes to Rs.84,000/-. The same is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the husband. 17. Learned counsel for the husband, with reference to the amount involved in E.P.No.10 of 2006, submits that the arrears payable thereunder is only Rs.20,000/- but not Rs.84,000/-. 18. We do not find any proper assistance from the learned counsel for the wife, who, unfortunately, is the father of the wife. Despite the offer made by this Court to take legal assistance, the same was not accepted to and it is only the father of the wife in the capacity of an Advocate argued the matter and his assistance is of very poor quality. 19. However, we have given a patient hearing of the matter in all respects. 20. There is serious dispute with regard to the quantification of interim maintenance granted by this Court in C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 of 2003, which is the subject matter of E.P.No.1 of 2005, between the parties, as well as the amount involved in E.P.No.10 of 2006, which is the subject matter of F.C.A.No.8 of 2007. 21. We are of the considered view that virtually this Court cannot arrive at a definite quantification of the amounts involved in the said E.Ps., and the legality or otherwise of the amounts being relief on by either side. In fact, we are in a confusing state as regards the quantum of maintenance involved in these proceedings. 22. Therefore, we are forced to go by the decision taken by this Court in C.M.A.M.P.No.23513 in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 and fix the permanent alimony to the wife and the child, including all the amounts, which are the subject matter of E.P.Nos.1 of 2005 and 10 of 2006, which again are the subject matter of F.C.A.Nos.97 of 2005 and 8 of 2007, respectively. 23. Even assuming that the figures mentioned by the wife towards maintenance in the said E.Ps., as Rs.1,84,000/ and Rs.84,000/- as true and correct, it comes to a total sum of Rs.2,68,000/-. We are reiterating that we are not expressing any view about the legality, veracity or adequacy or otherwise of the said amounts nor we express any view on the quantification made by either side. 24. In this regard, it is represented by both the parties hat on earlier occasions, there were some offers and counter offers, which went upto Rs.8,50,000/- towards permanent alimony to be paid by the husband to the wife and athe child. 25. We tried to persuade both sides. Despite our best efforts to persuade, learned counsel for the husband wanted to have instructions from his client, and that the wife, who is represented by her father as an Advocate, also is not in a position to arrive at a near figure that was offered by the husband. 26. Therefore, having regard to the present peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view he long drawn litigation between the parties, in order to give a quietus to the manifold litigation, as of now, we deem it appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony payable by the husband both to the wife and the child and the same, in our considered view, is just and reasonable. Accordingly, we direct the husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), inclusive of all, towards permanent alimony to the wife and the child. The said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) shall be apportioned equally between the wife and the child. 27. For the foregoing reasons, C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003 is allowed, setting aside the order and decree, dated 05.11.2002, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.568 of 1999, and consequently the marriage between the appellant- husband and the first respondent-wife shall stand dissolved by way of a decree of divorce. 28. In view of the said decision and conclusion arrived at in C.M.A.No.1950 of 2003, towards permanent alimony, no further orders need be passed in the remaining appeals viz., F.C.A.No.s97 and 144 of 2005, 8 of 2007 and 39 of 2010 and accordingly all the said appeals shall stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 29. It is needless to mention that the child will have all the statutory rights as the daughter of the appellant-father. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 10TH AUGUST 2010 DR