THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.415 of 2001 AND APPEAL SUIT No.418 of 2001 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both sides. 2. Since the parties in both the cases are one and the same, and both the cases are interlinked to each other, they are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.415 of 2001 is directed against the order, dated 18.12.2000, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, dismissing O.P.No.76 of 1998, filed by the appellant, under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent herein. 4. Appeal Suit No.418 of 2001 is directed against the order, dated 18.12.2000, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, allowing O.S.No.22 of 1998, filed by the respondent herein, under Section 26 read with VII of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 7 (f) of Family Courts Act, seeking maintenance from the appellant. 5. The appellant in both the appeals is the husband of the respondent herein. 6. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the appellant will be referred to as “the husband” and the respondent will be referred to as “the wife”. 7. The undisputed facts appear to be that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 18.12.1994. For a few months the marital tie went on normally. Of course, there is some conflict in the version of the parties as to when actually differences cropped up between them and for what reasons. In fact, those are not relevant. The specific case of the wife is that the marriage has been consummated, whereas the case of the husband is that marriage has not been consummated. But, the fact remains that the marital tie between them had not been snapped and the same is in subsistence. 8. The husband filed O.P.No.76 of 1998 seeking divorce mainly on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife filed O.S.No.22 of 1998 seeking maintenance from the husband. Some evidence, both oral and documentary, had been adduced on behalf of both the parties in the said O.P. so also in the said O.S. 9. Actually, the matter has been listed today as a consequence of the earlier conciliation proceedings initiated by this Court. Some advices were made by the earlier Division Bench of this Court to both the parties mostly with regard to the permanent alimony to be given to the wife by the husband, in case of granting the relief of divorce. 10. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties are fair enough to place before this Court that on earlier occasions, there were conciliatory efforts made by another Division Bench of this Court about the fixation of quantum of permanent alimony. 11. Virtually, today’s proceedings under the caption “for Orders” are in continuance of the earlier conciliatory proceedings, whereunder both the parties were asked to be present before this Court and that even today, both the parties are present before the Court. 12. At the first instance, learned counsel appearing on either side advanced their arguments on merits, but when the proposals made by the earlier Division Bench of this Court were put to the learned counsel and the parties, both the parties, represented by their respective learned counsel, agreed for dissolution of marriage between them by way of granting a decree of divorce. 13. In view of various factors, i.e., the averments made by the wife and the husband against each other and also the various proceedings initiated by the wife and the husband against each other and particularly, in view of the fact that even as on today bad blood is flowing in their veins, virtually, there is absolute incompatibility between both the parties, and both of them agreed to put an end to this endless litigation, which has actually generated a decade and half ago. 14. Apart from the incompatible atmosphere prevailing as on today, in view of the agreement by both the parties to grant a decree of divorce, this Court suggested the husband as to the quantum of the permanent alimony to be paid to the wife. Pursuant thereto, both parties quoted certain figures and as a measure to strike a balance, this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient to grant divorce as agreed by both the parties, while granting some reasonable amount towards permanent alimony. 15. We have taken into consideration the figures quoted by either of the parties. We feel it just and equitable to fix a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) towards permanent alimony to be paid by the husband to the wife. In view of the said conclusion and since no further objections have been raised by either of the parties, we conclude that decree of divorce be granted. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that M.C.No.47 of 1996 filed by the wife against the husband is still pending. 16. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that M.C.No.47 of 2006 was initially presented before the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad at Nampally and the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of Crl.R.C.No.2143 of 2009, upon which, this Court allowed the Revision Case and remanded the matter to the same Court i.e., Family Court, Hyderabad at Nampally. 17. In view of the above conclusions arrived at by us in allowing C.M.A.No.415 of 2001, learned counsel representing their respective parties agreed that the said M.C., which is now pending on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad at Nampally, be withdrawn within ten days. 18. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.415 of 2001 is liable to be allowed. In view of the final orders being passed in C.M.A.No.415 of 2001, it is inexpedient to continue A.S.No.418 of 2001, the subject matter of which is payment of maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court. Accordingly, as a consequence of allowing of C.M.A.No.415 of 2001, A.S.No.418 of 2001 is liable to be allowed. 19. In the result, both the appeals are allowed, granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant- husband shall pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) towards permanent alimony to the wife, i.e., he is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the S.B.Account No.16774 of the respondent-wife in Bank of Maharastra, R.K.Nagar, Safilguda Branch, Hyderabad, within a period of four months from today and the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) shall be deposited within a period of four months thereafter. Till such time, a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) shall be paid by the husband to the wife towards her maintenance. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 20. It is made clear that this decree would come into operation subject to condition that M.C.No.47 of 1996 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad at Nampally is withdrawn by her. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein undertook that steps will be taken to withdraw the said M.C. within ten days from today. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 30th June 2010 dr