Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1569 (TS)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2025-11-20

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Damodar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court – cum – Additional District Judge, Khammam, in FCOP No.66 of 2012, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. The appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 29.05.1986 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two sons out of their lawful wedlock. They are aged 19 and 16 years by the time of filing FCOP. Thereafter, disputes arose between them. 4. The appellant filed the aforesaid petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 29.05.1986 at Khammam. They were blessed with two sons namely Rahul Krishna aged about 19 years and Bhran Krishna aged about 16 years by the time of filing of OP. Respondent addicted to bad habits and also developed illegal contact with one Vankayala Kavitha, an employee in the water plant of the appellant. The respondent harassed her both physically and mentally on petty issues and with a demand of money for his bad habits and lead luxurious life. On 18.05.2011, the respondent necked her out from his house and since then she was residing in her parents house and doing business under the name of ‘Hanuman Package Drinking Water Plant’ at Khammam. Respondent neglected the welfare of the appellant and her sons. Her efforts to join the respondent were in vain. A Panchayat held for re-union was also proved futile. The respondent in collusion with one Kesa Vijaya Laxmi, daughter – in – law of his own sister, interfered with her possession and enjoyment over water plant on 27.11.2011, damaged the property and tried to dispossess the appellant from the said plant. The appellant filed a suit vide O.S.No.606 of 2011 and got decree in her favour. Even though there is decree, the respondent and said Vijayalaxmi have stolen the machinery from the said plaint on 18.06.2012. There is every likelihood of danger to the life of the appellant. The appellant filed a suit vide O.S.No.606 of 2011 and got decree in her favour. Even though there is decree, the respondent and said Vijayalaxmi have stolen the machinery from the said plaint on 18.06.2012. There is every likelihood of danger to the life of the appellant. Therefore, she sought to grant decree of divorce. 5. The respondent opposed the said FCOP by filing counter contending that due to adamant nature of the appellant, the respondent once attempted to commit suicide. The appellant deserted him intentionally. The respondent acquired properties by doing hard work and business. The appellant being his niece, he executed sale deeds in her name. Thereafter, the appellant gifted the property to the respondent. When the appellant tried to alienate the said properties neglecting the welfare of the children, the respondent filed a suit vide O.S.No.498 of 2012 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from alienating such property to third parties for her luxurious life. The appellant sold Ac.5.00 of land to third parties intentionally without considering the welfare of the children. Thus, he never subjected the appellant to cruelty and deserted her as alleged. Therefore, the respondent sought to dismiss the petition. 6. To prove the cruelty and desertion, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2. She has not marked any document. 7. To disprove the claim of the appellant, respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. Ex.B.1 is plaint in O.S.No.498 of 2012 and Ex.B.2 is petition in I.A.No.in O.S.498 of 2012. 8. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 28.11.2014, Family Court, dismissed the said FCOP holding that the appellant failed to prove the cruelty and desertion. Challenging the said order, the appellant/wife preferred the present appeal. 9. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent is the maternal uncle (mother’s brother) of the appellant. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two sons out of their lawful wedlock. Their children are aged about 34 and 30 years at present. They have performed marriage of the first son in 2021. Their first son along with his wife are staying in the same house. Appellant and respondent are also staying together. They have to perform marriage of second son. They were blessed with two sons out of their lawful wedlock. Their children are aged about 34 and 30 years at present. They have performed marriage of the first son in 2021. Their first son along with his wife are staying in the same house. Appellant and respondent are also staying together. They have to perform marriage of second son. They have started business under the name and style of ‘Hanuman Package Drinking Water Plant’ at Khammam. According to them, their elder son is taking care of the said water plant along with the respondent. 10. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. The spouse, who is alleging cruelty against the other spouse, has to plead and prove by producing relevant evidence. In the present case, appellant/wife alleged cruelty against the respondent. Therefore, she has to plead and prove the same by producing relevant evidence both oral and documentary. To prove cruelty, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2 but she has not filed any document. According to the appellant, respondent was having all bad habits like taking alcohol, eating gutkas and ambar and having illegal contact with one Vankayala Kavitha, an employee in the said water plant. He used to harass her both physically and mentally and demanded money for his vices and luxurious life. She started business of water plant. Respondent did not invest single pie in the said business. He used to abuse her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately in the presence of their children. She has further alleged that respondent in collusion with one Kesa Vijayalakshmi, daughter-in-law of his sister, creating troubles to her and tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over the said water plant. On 27.11.2011, respondent and said Vijayalakshmi damaged the said water plant and tried to dispossess her from the said plant. She has filed a suit vide O.S.No.606 of 2011 and got decreed in her favour. After the said decree, the respondent and the said Vijayalakshmi sold away the machinery of the said water plant on 18.10.2012. The respondent is trying to end the life of the appellant. Thus, respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her. 11. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, she has examined as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2. After the said decree, the respondent and the said Vijayalakshmi sold away the machinery of the said water plant on 18.10.2012. The respondent is trying to end the life of the appellant. Thus, respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her. 11. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, she has examined as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2. She has not filed copy of the decree in O.S.No.606 of 2011 and she has not examined any witness to prove the incident dated 27.11.2011 i.e. damaging the water plant by the respondent and the said Vijayalakshmi and trying to dispossess her from the plant. Though she has alleged that respondent and said Vijayalakshmi sold away machinery from the said plant on 18.06.2011, she has not filed any document. She has not examined any witness to prove the same. She has not taken steps to examine said K.Vijayalakshmi or any third party. She has not examined any witness to prove that the respondent has illicit relation with Vankayala Kavitha, an employee of the said water plant. She failed to file any document or examine any witness to prove that she has started the said water plant on her own. 12. As discussed supra, the appellant is niece/ sister’s daughter of the respondent. It is an arranged marriage. Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the respondent maintained illicit relation with one Vankayala Kavitha, and colluded with said Vijayalakshmi, without producing any evidence. Though the appellant alleged that the respondent used to abuse her in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately in the presence of her children who were 19 and 16 years at the time of filing of FCOP, she has not proved the same by examining any witness including her sons. Even then, the appellant did not examine her sons as witness to prove the said fact. During cross-examination, both the P.Ws. 1 and 2 admitted that panchayats were held and they have not examined any witnesses including any elder of the said panchayats. 13. Cruelty is a serious allegation which the appellant has to plead and prove. Petty issues between the parties are not cruel acts. Wear and tear between the spouse cannot be considered as cruelty. 14. As discussed supra, though the appellant made serious allegation that respondent maintained illicit relation with an employee Vankayala Kavitha, she has not examined any witness to prove the same. Petty issues between the parties are not cruel acts. Wear and tear between the spouse cannot be considered as cruelty. 14. As discussed supra, though the appellant made serious allegation that respondent maintained illicit relation with an employee Vankayala Kavitha, she has not examined any witness to prove the same. She has not made said Vankayala Kavitha as a party to the aforesaid FCOP and that she has not filed the aforesaid FCOP on the ground of adultery. She has filed the aforesaid petition on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Burden lies on the appellant to plead and prove the same. In the present case, the appellant failed to plead and prove the said cruelty and desertion. 15. With regard to the desertion, according to the appellant, respondent deserted her in the month of May, 2011. She has not examined any witness including elder of the panchayat, third parties to prove the same. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, both the appellant and respondent are close relatives. The appellant is niece/sister’s daughter of the respondent. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two children out of their lawful wedlock. They have two major sons and they have performed marriage of their elder son who is also staying with them in the same house along with the wife for the present. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts, vide order dated 27.10.2025, we have directed the parties to appear before us for the purpose of interaction. In compliance with the said order, both the appellant and respondent were present in persons. We have interacted with them individually and together. During the course of interaction, they have informed us that they are staying in the very same house along with their sons and daughter-in-law. They are running a water plant business. They are looking for alliance to their younger son. They are presently residing at Khammam. They came to the bus stand on the very same two wheeler driven by the respondent, and they came to this Court from Khammam to Hyderabad in the very same bus. They came to the Court together. The said facts would reveal that there is no desertion between them as alleged by the appellant herein. 17. It is also apt to note that during the course of interaction, respondent informed us that he is intending to stay with the appellant. They came to the Court together. The said facts would reveal that there is no desertion between them as alleged by the appellant herein. 17. It is also apt to note that during the course of interaction, respondent informed us that he is intending to stay with the appellant. According to him, behavior of the appellant is indifferent. Even then, keeping welfare of his sons, also that she is his niece and their age, he is intending to continue marital life with her. Though she has attempted to commit suicide, he has tolerated the same keeping in view the welfare of his children and his married life. Even during pendency of the appeal, she has abused his mother in filthy language. 18. Whereas, the appellant informed us that the respondent is subjecting her to cruelty and she is not interested to lead life with respondent. She sought divorce. 19. As discussed supra, the appellant has to plead and prove the cruelty and desertion by producing relevant evidence both oral and documentary. On mere allegations, neither Family Court nor this Court dissolve the marriage of the parties as they are staying together and that the marriage is not irretrievably broken down. It is also apt to note that the appellant is 55 years and respondent is 61 years for the present. 20. It is also apt to note that the respondent – husband has filed a suit in O.S.No.468 of 2011 to protect his property. Ex.B.1 is plaint in the said suit. Thus, the said aspects were also considered by the Family Court in the impugned order. 21. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid FCOP filed by the appellant against the respondent seeking decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The impugned order is reasoned and well founded. The appellant herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.