Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1814 (TS)

Mamidi Hymavathi v. Mamidi Devender

2025-12-12

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2025
JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Sri S.Sudarshan, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 2. Appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. Appellant/wife has filed petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide O.P.No.356 of 2011 against respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage between the appellant and respondent performed on 17.11.1996. 3. Vide impugned order dated 16.06.2015, learned Judge, Family Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, dismissed the said petition. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, appellant/wife preferred the present appeal. 4. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 17.11.1996 as per Hindu Rights and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a male child on 07.01.1998 and female child on 25.12.2003. 5. According to the appellant/wife, the respondent/husband subjected her to cruelty and deserted her on 13.06.2005. She has further contended that at the time of marriage, it was impressed upon her that the respondent was highly qualified person, but after the marriage, she came to know that the respondent is only B.Sc graduate and he was running a computer institute. The said institute was also closed after the marriage. The appellant and respondent have joined in a computer course in order to go to UK. Later both of them applied for VISA. The appellant got VISA. The respondent did not get VISA. The appellant left UK in the month of June, 2001 but returned back in the month of March, 2003. Respondent is not satisfied with the dowry articles. Therefore, he started harassing the appellant. He has ill-treated her and abused her in filthy language. After the death of respondent’s father, he aggravated the said harassment. 6. Appellant further contended that she along with the respondent set up a separate family in their flat at Kukatpally colony and that she went to her parents house for the purpose of birth of their daughter. When she returned back, respondent did not allow her into the house. Her parents took her to their house. Thus, the respondent ill-treated her. Respondent’s mother threatened her to get the respondent marry again, if she failed to fetch Rs.2.00 lakhs and also kill her. The respondent and his mother necked out the appellant from the house. When she returned back, respondent did not allow her into the house. Her parents took her to their house. Thus, the respondent ill-treated her. Respondent’s mother threatened her to get the respondent marry again, if she failed to fetch Rs.2.00 lakhs and also kill her. The respondent and his mother necked out the appellant from the house. On 13.04.2005, she lodged a complaint with the police, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2005 against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Respondent agreed to take back the appellant on the condition that she has to withdraw the said criminal case. On such advise of the elders, they have entered into a written agreement on 22.05.2005 on the condition that the appellant and respondent will live separately. On the said assurance, she withdrew the said criminal case. Even then, there was no change in the attitude of the respondent. He again necked her out from the house on 13.06.2005. Even according to the appellant, respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her. 7. Respondent filed counter denying the said allegations. According to him, he never harassed the appellant and never deserted her. It is the appellant, who deserted him. She has insulted him saying that he is only B.Sc graduate. 8. To prove said cruelty and desertion, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and her sister as P.W.2. She has filed Ex.P1, original marriage certificate and Ex.P2, Xerox copy of voter ID card. To disprove the same, respondent examined himself as R.W.1. 9. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, vide impugned judgment dated 16.06.2015, learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant herein failed to prove both cruelty and desertion. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal. 10. As discussed supra, it is the appellant, who filed the aforesaid petition against the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, she has to plead and prove the said cruelty and desertion, by producing reliable evidence. 11. As discussed supra, she has narrated certain cruel acts of the respondent herein towards her. 12. During cross-examination, appellant has admitted that she went to UK for study purpose. She stayed there for a period of four years for the purpose of studying Diploma and Administration. 11. As discussed supra, she has narrated certain cruel acts of the respondent herein towards her. 12. During cross-examination, appellant has admitted that she went to UK for study purpose. She stayed there for a period of four years for the purpose of studying Diploma and Administration. She was staying in Singapore Township at Ghatkeser along with her mother and children. After completion of four years of marriage, she went to UK. During the said period of four years, she visited India once. During the said period, her mother used to take care of her children. She has also admitted about lodging a complaint against the respondent and his mother. She has also admitted that she withdrew the said complaint on the assurance given by the respondent and his mother. She has further admitted that after return from UK, she started living separately. 13. P.W.2, sister of appellant, during her cross-examination has categorically admitted about the marriage, children and that the appellant went to UK for a period of four years and also expenses for getting VISA to the appellant. P.W.1 apprehended danger in the hands of the respondent. Therefore, she has not approached for counseling. 14. Respondent examined himself as R.W.1. In his chief examination, it is specifically stated that he is a Science graduate. He used to run an institute in the name and style of ‘Hitech Computer’. He started the said institute in the year 1995. After the marriage, the appellant also joined as tutor in the said institute. He ran the said institute up to 2001. He stopped running the said institute due to changes in the software education. They have joined in Sri Sai Electronic Designs Centre at Ranigunj. Before marriage, appellant worked in the same centre and on her recommendation, he also joined. Both of them worked in the same centre for one year. Both of them applied for VISA to go to UK for education purpose. Appellant got VISA and he did not get VISA. She went to UK. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant went to UK again in the year 2005. He has also admitted about the appellant lodging complaint against him and his mother. He further admitted that his second brother namely Venumadav obtained decree of divorce with mutual consent and again married. She went to UK. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant went to UK again in the year 2005. He has also admitted about the appellant lodging complaint against him and his mother. He further admitted that his second brother namely Venumadav obtained decree of divorce with mutual consent and again married. However, he has denied a suggestion that he left the company of the appellant while she was carrying 7 th month pregnancy along with his belongings without informing her. He has also further admitted that she is living separately with her parents at Kukatpally. He has not issued any notice to the appellant for rejoining with him and he has not filed any petition for reunion of their marital life. He has further admitted that he has paid school fee of his children upto 2007. Thereafter, appellant paid the school fee. However, he denied the suggestion that he is suffering with psychological imbalance, due to which he never cared about the family etc. He has also denied a suggestion that he started suspecting the moment of the appellant herein. 15. The aforesaid evidence would reveal that there are disputes between the appellant and respondent. Appellant is a postgraduate whereas, respondent is only a science graduate at the time of marriage. It appears that disputes are with regard to the said educational qualifications of the parties, initially. 16. It is the specific contention of the appellant herein that at the time of marriage, respondent and his mother gave an impression to the appellant and her parents that he is highly educated man. However, after marriage, she came to know that he is only science graduate. She has also admitted about the respondent running a computer institute. Both of them joined in the separate computer institutes with an intention to go to UK. Respondent did not get VISA, but the appellant got VISA. Therefore, disputes arose between them. 17. Perusal of evidence also would reveal that according to the appellant, respondent deserted her on 13.06.2005. According to the respondent, appellant left his company. 18. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has lodged complaint against the respondent and his mother for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. A case in Crime No.276 of 2005 was registered against them. According to the respondent, appellant left his company. 18. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has lodged complaint against the respondent and his mother for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. A case in Crime No.276 of 2005 was registered against them. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid case was withdrawn on the advise of both elders and well-wishers since the appellant and respondent agreed to join together. They have also entered into a written agreement on 22.05.2005, but none of them filed copy of the said agreement before the Family Court. It is not part of the record. It is the specific contention of the appellant that despite the said agreement, respondent continued harassment and deserted her on 13.06.2005. 19. Admittedly, both the appellant and respondent are residing separately from 13.06.2005. 20. It is also opt to note that it is the appellant/wife who filed the said petition against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. She only brought up both the children. She is seeking dissolution of marriage. As discussed supra, they are living separately from 13.06.2005. The marriage of the parties has irretrievably broken down. 21. It is settled principle of law that neither the Family Court nor this court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage. But the said aspect can be considered by this Court along with other aspects while deciding the present appeal. 22. As discussed supra, despite granting sufficient opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Appellant has filed the aforesaid OP in the year 2011 and the same was dismissed by the Family Court dated 16.06.2015. She preferred the present appeal in the year 2015. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no possibility of reunion of the parties. Therefore, appeal is liable to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed setting aside the order dated 16.06.2015 in OP No.356 of 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent performed on 17.11.1996 is dissolved by way of decree of divorce. 24. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.