Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 112 (TS)

XXXXXXX v. XXXXXXX

2026-01-20

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2026
JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases and Sri G. Udaya Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. In both the Appeals, the appellant is the husband and the respondent is his wife. Their marriage was performed on 05.12.1996 as per Hindu rites and customs and it is an arranged marriage. 3. Out of their lawful wedlock, they were blessed with three children i.e., T. Sai Abhishek born on 25.10.1997 and Anuvamshika born on 22.11.1998 and Alaknanda Devi born on 05.08.2001. 4. The appellant-husband filed petition under Section 13 (1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide O.P.No.1189/2010 against the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The respondent-wife filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide O.P.No.191 of 2011 against the appellant-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-wife filed a petition vide O.P.No.408 of 2011 against the appellant-husband seeking custody of the children and also for visitation rights. 5. Vide common order, dated 24.10.2014, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court at Huyderabad dismissed O.P.No.1189/2010 filed by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed O.P.No.191/2011 filed by the respondent-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant-husband preferred the present appeals. Vide the said common order, learned Family Court partly allowed O.P.No.408 of 2011 filed by wife, granting visitation rights. However, no appeal is preferred against the said order. 6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant–husband as well as respondent-wife that children became major and they are living with the appellant-father. Out of them one daughter and son are doctors (BDS) and another doctor is electrical engineer. 7. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, the appellant- husband himself examined as PW1, his mother as PW2 and neighbor as PW3. The appellant-husband filed Exs.P1 to P16 documents. To disprove the same, the respondent-wife examined herself as RW1, but she did not file any documents. On consideration of the said evidence, the learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.191/2011 and dismissed O.P.No.1189/2010. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband contended that the appellant-husband has not taken any dowry at the time of marriage. The appellant-husband filed Exs.P1 to P16 documents. To disprove the same, the respondent-wife examined herself as RW1, but she did not file any documents. On consideration of the said evidence, the learned Family Court allowed O.P.No.191/2011 and dismissed O.P.No.1189/2010. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband contended that the appellant-husband has not taken any dowry at the time of marriage. In fact he only gifted gold jewellery of 2 ½ thulas towards managala sutram and also 2 ½ tulas towards gold mangala suthram chain at the time of marriage to the respondent. The parents of the respondent have no issues except the respondent as their adopted daughter. Therefore, the parents of the respondent have requested the appellant to stay with them as illatom son-in-law after marriage. The parents of the respondent-wife are distant relatives of the appellant- husband and they are old persons and thus, the appellant agreed for the request of the parents of the respondent. There were some tenants in the house of the parents of the respondent and they have not vacated even after one year of marriage of the appellant and respondent. 9. It is further contended by the appellant that the appellant and respondent stayed at Golnaka, Tilaknagar for a period of 11 months after marriage. They were blessed with aforesaid three children. After first delivery of the child, the appellant and respondent shifted to the parents’ house of the respondent. The appellant incurred pre and post delivery expenses in the hospital. The parents of the respondent did not bear the said expenditure. The parents of the respondent are not in a position to incur the said expenses because of their bad vices and debts. The house of the parents’ of the respondent is not in habituated position, as such, the appellant spent huge amount for repair and to provide electricity, drainage, water supply and gas connection. The appellant also incurred huge expenditure for household articles i.e., television, fridge, dining table and furniture etc. The appellant being an Advocate got respectful image in the society, obtained loan from advocates and bid chit from Sriram Chits to clear the debts of the respondent’s parents. Thus, the respondent and her parents subjected the appellant to cruelty and harassed him for money to meet their bad vices. 10. The appellant being an Advocate got respectful image in the society, obtained loan from advocates and bid chit from Sriram Chits to clear the debts of the respondent’s parents. Thus, the respondent and her parents subjected the appellant to cruelty and harassed him for money to meet their bad vices. 10. It is further contended by the appellant-husband that during the stay of the appellant and respondent at her parents’ house in the month of April, 2002, they were blessed with two children. The respondent and her parents created nuisance and they used to fight with parents and sister of the appellant whenever they visited the said house. The parents of the respondent were against the visit of appellant’s relatives to their house. The respondent used to support her parents. The respondent used to fight with the appellant for not fulfilling her unreasonable demands for their bad vices. 11. The respondent along with her parents have gone to the extent of indulging third parties like Mysamma and Sugunamma (friends of the respondent’s mother) in the disputes. Therefore, the appellant vexed with the behavior of the respondent and her parents, decided to shift from the said place. The appellant shifted to Nallakunta in the year 2002 with a hope that there would be change in the attitude of the respondent. Till August, 2003, there was no relationship between the appellant and the parents of the respondent. The respondent continued to stay with her parents. 12. It is further contended by the appellant that the appellant’s last daughter Alakananda Devi’s ceremony was performed at Godavari Pushkaralu. The respondent created ruckus with the appellant and insisted her parents to accompany her for pilgrimage. The respondent used to fight with the appellant and manhandled him until he accepts to take her parents along with her. 13. The parents of the respondent mortgaged the house bearing No.12-1-485/78 to one Shanker, S/o. Ganesh Singh for their bad vices. Due to pressure of the creditors, the respondent and her parents again harassed the appellant by creating fight with him and made the life of the appellant miserable. Thus, the respondent and her parents subjected him to cruelty. The appellant with the help of M. Vittalappa and Narsimhulu arranged an amount of Rs.1.90 lakhs to the mother of the respondent and paid an amount of Rs.1.10 lakhs to the mortgagor. Thus, the respondent and her parents subjected him to cruelty. The appellant with the help of M. Vittalappa and Narsimhulu arranged an amount of Rs.1.90 lakhs to the mother of the respondent and paid an amount of Rs.1.10 lakhs to the mortgagor. The respondent threatened the appellant and his parents with lodging a complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide DVC No.119/2011 on the file of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The respondent also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. Thus, the respondent subjected him to cruelty and also deserted him from 05.06.2009. 14. As discussed supra, to prove the said cruelty and desertion, the appellant-husband examined himself as PW1 and his mother as PW2 and his neighbor as PW3. 15. The appellant in his evidence deposed that he purchased the household articles i.e., T.V. Refrigerator and other things for the house of the respondent’s parents. The parents of the respondent used to borrow money from others for their bad habits. He also borrowed loans from Mr.Raji Reddy, Advocate and Ms. Sinduja, Advocate and also had taken some chit fund amount from Sriram Chits and repaid the debts of the parents of the respondent, but the appellant neither examined those persons, nor filed any documentary evidence to show that he had taken money from the said Chit Fund Company. On the other hand, the respondent in her evidence stated that her parents did not have any bad habits and that the appellant did not clear any debts of her parents. Therefore, the burden is on the appellant to plead and prove that he has cleared the debts of the parents of the respondent by producing cogent evidence. Even, the appellant has not stated in his evidence who are the creditors of the parents of the respondent and the details of the amounts paid to them. Thus, the appellant failed to plead and prove that the parents of the respondent were indebted to the creditors. 16. The appellant also deposed that the parents of the respondent mortgaged the house bearing No.12-1-485/78 to one Mr. Shanker for their bad vices and due to the pressure of Mr. Shanker, the appellant paid the amount by taking loan from one Mr. 16. The appellant also deposed that the parents of the respondent mortgaged the house bearing No.12-1-485/78 to one Mr. Shanker for their bad vices and due to the pressure of Mr. Shanker, the appellant paid the amount by taking loan from one Mr. Vitalappa and Mr. Narsimhulu. He also filed Exs.P5 and 6 receipts to that effect. On this aspect, the learned Family Court held that the demand by the creditors of the parents of the respondent to repay the loan amount cannot be taken into consideration as a cruelty caused by the respondent to him. 17. According to the appellant, he went to the house of the respondent as an illatom son-in-law and stayed there for some time. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the adopted daughter of her parents. Even otherwise, the appellant being the son-in-law must have taken the responsibility and discharged the alleged loans. Therefore, discharge of such alleged loans by the appellant would not amount to ‘cruelty’ as alleged by the appellant. 18. The appellant also contended that he wanted to purchase a flat in the name of his children, but the respondent insisted him to purchase the same in the name of her parents and accordingly he purchased the flat in the name of her parents. But he has not pleaded and proved the same. Assuming for a moment it is correct, the same also would not amount to ‘cruelty’. 19. The appellant also examined PW.2 and 3 to prove that the respondent borrowed certain amounts from them, but their evidence is not trustworthy to consider prove the said cruelty. 20. It is apt to note that the though the appellant is claiming that the respondent deserted him on 05.06.2009, he has filed O.P.No.1189/2010 only in the year 2010. Thus, there is no desertion of two years to file aforesaid OP seeking dissolution of marriage as mandated under Section 13 (1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 21. Though the appellant made several allegations against the respondent, he has not examined the relevant witnesses including the aforesaid Mr. M.Vittalappa, Mr. Narsimhulu, Mr. Raji Reddy and Ms. Sindhuja advocates. The appellant has not examined any person to whom he alleged to have cleared loans of respondent and her parents. The appellant has examined only his mother as PW2. The evidence of PW3 is not useful to the appellant. 22. M.Vittalappa, Mr. Narsimhulu, Mr. Raji Reddy and Ms. Sindhuja advocates. The appellant has not examined any person to whom he alleged to have cleared loans of respondent and her parents. The appellant has examined only his mother as PW2. The evidence of PW3 is not useful to the appellant. 22. It is the specific contention of the respondent that her mother is working as Aaya in government hospital and she used to get handsome salary. She has executed two registered gift settlement deeds under Exs.P7 and P8. Therefore, there is no need for the mother of the respondent to obtain loans from the third parties and create nuisance to the appellant. Even then, nothing useful was elicited from her during cross examination. 23. It is the appellant, who has filed the aforesaid OP against the respondent seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, the burden lies upon the appellant to prove the cruel acts. It is also apt to note that the term ‘cruelty’ is not defined in any statute. The learned Family Court or this Court did not find any material including the depositions and also evidence on record to come to a conclusion as to whether allegations made by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife would constitute cruelty or not. Mere allegation of cruel acts is not sufficient. The appellant has to plead and prove cruelty by producing reliable cogent evidence. In the present case, the appellant failed to produce reliable evidence, both oral and documentary to prove the said cruelty. Mere filing of an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance and application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not cruel act. The respondent-wife has not filed any complaint against the appellant-husband or his parents for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 24. Thus, on consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 24.10.2014, the learned Family Court dismissed O.P.No.1189 of 2010 and allowed O.P.No.191 of 2011. It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. 25. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant - husband is aged 54 years at present and he is a practicing advocate. It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. 25. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant - husband is aged 54 years at present and he is a practicing advocate. The respondent-wife is aged about 49 years and she is a housewife. All the children of the parties are majors and admittedly, they are with the appellant (father). 26. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1675 2. Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal , 2021 (5) ALD 286 (SC) 3. Moola Premchand v. Moola Manasa , 2024 (5) ALD 818 (TS) (DB) 4. Gunapu Jayamma v. Gunapu Dharma Rao , 2024 (6) ALD 649 (A)(DB) 5. D. Narsimha @ Narsimlu v. D . Anita Vaishnavi, 2024 (5) ALD 562 (TS) (DB) 6. K. Sekhar Rao v. K. Rekha and another , 2024 (5) ALD 468 (TS(DB) 27. In Sivasankaran’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted decree of divorce by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India considering fact that the relationship of the parties therein was irretrievably broke down. 28. In Naveen Kohli’s case (supra) the Apex Court gave certain illustrations of cruelty and they are not conclusive. 29. In Moola Premchand’s case (supra) this court considering the entire evidence and also the fact that the parties were staying separately since more than 11 years, granted divorce. Thus, the facts in the above said decision are different to the facts of the present case. 30. In Gunapu Jayamma’s case (supra), the parties were living separately since last 20 years. Thus, the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the case in the said decision. In D. Narsimha’s case (supra), the parties were staying separately since last 11 years and in K. Sekhar Rao’s case (supra) , the parties were living separately for 16 years and therefore, the facts of the said cases are different from the facts of the present case. 31. It is opt to note that neither the Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 32. 31. It is opt to note that neither the Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant- husband failed to make out any of the grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 33. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, FCA Nos.24 and 28 of 2015 are dismissed, conforming the order dated 24.10.2014 in O.P.No.191 of 2011, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.