Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 157 (TS)

M. Upender Kumar v. Suryakala @ Jyothi

2026-01-23

K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

body2026
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Heard Sri S.R.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.R.V.Indira Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 14.10.2015 in FCOP No.166 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. The appellant is the husband, and the respondent is the wife. 3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13(i) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty. 4. The appellant contended that his marriage with the appellant was performed on 23.05.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. The said marriage was consummated. The respondent became pregnant and she got aborted. They lived happily for a period of five months. Thereafter, the respondent started harassing him mentally. She developed suspicion over his character. She used to abuse the appellant and his parents in filthy language and also abused him before his colleagues and friends. She has suicidal tendency. She also developed signs of schizophrenia and behaved negatively towards him. Thus, the respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty. He tolerated her with a fond hope that she may change her behavior. There was no change in her behavior. 5. It is further stated that a panchayat was held on 09.09.2012, she was sent along with her parents with all her belongings. The appellant tried his level best to live with the respondent. He became a victim of mental cruelty in the hands of respondent. He lost his patience and could not concentrate on his work. Thus, the appellant filed the aforesaid OP against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 6. Respondent filed counter denying the said allegations. According to the respondent, her parents gave an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- cash and also presented household articles and furniture etc., at the time of marriage to the appellant. The appellant had an illegal affair with one Preethisagar, his colleague. Her parents held panchayat and elders advised the appellant his family members to mend their ways. There was no change in his behavior. The appellant and his parents used to blackmail her and also beat her blue and black. Due to the said continuous physical harassment, she got aborted. Another panchayat was held. Her parents held panchayat and elders advised the appellant his family members to mend their ways. There was no change in his behavior. The appellant and his parents used to blackmail her and also beat her blue and black. Due to the said continuous physical harassment, she got aborted. Another panchayat was held. Despite advise of the elders, there was no change in the behavior of the appellant. To get rid of the respondent, to continue his illegal relationship with Preethisagar, the appellant filed the aforesaid OP seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 7. To prove the cruelty, the appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and his relative as P.W.2. He filed Ex.A1/marriage card, Ex.A2/marriage photographs, Ex.A3/legal notice dated 13.09.2012, Ex.A4/acknowledgment and Ex.A5/reply notice dated 25.09.2012. 8. To disprove the said cruelty, respondent got examined herself as R.W.1. However, she did not exhibit any documents. 9. On consideration of the said evidence both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 14.10.2015, learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, dismissed the said OP holding that the appellant herein failed to plead and prove cruel acts of the respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, extensively. 11. Perusal of the record and rival contentions of both parties, would reveal that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 23.05.2010. It is an arranged marriage and it is as per Hindu rites and customs. They lived happily for some time. She became pregnant. Thereafter, the same was aborted. The respondent developed a suspicion over the appellant that he maintained an illicit relationship with his colleague Preethisagar and he along with his parents administered poison on the respondent, due to which, there was a miscarriage of the pregnancy. Thus, appellant neglected her. 12. According to the appellant, the respondent due to her suspicion and also that she developed schizophrenia, she left the company of the appellant in the year 2011 itself. She did not file any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant herein. 13. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has lodged a complaint against the appellant and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. She did not file any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant herein. 13. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has lodged a complaint against the appellant and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. On receipt of the said complaint, the police conducted counseling and advised them to stay happily. 14. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act vide DVC No.368 of 2012 and the same was allowed. Even then, according to the respondent, appellant did not comply with the said order. However, she has not filed any application seeking execution of the said order. 15. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the respondent left the matrimonial house in the year 2011. The same is borne out by record, more particularly in the application filed by her in DVC No.368 of 2012 and also in her counter. Admittedly, she has not filed any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, both the appellant and the respondent are staying separately from the year 2011. 16. It is also apt to note that though the respondent alleged that the appellant maintained an illicit relationship with his colleague Preethisagar, she has not examined any witness and she has not filed any document to the said effect. 17. It is also apt to note that though the appellant alleged that the respondent is suffering with schizophrenia, he has not examined any witness to the said effect and he has not filed any document to prove the same. 18. It is also apt to note that to prove the said cruelty, the appellant examined P.W.2, his relative. During his cross-examination, P.w.2 admitted that the appellant is his cousin sister’s son. He did not know where both the parties stayed. He did not know whether P.W.1 had connection with his female colleague Preethisagar. He had not seen the respondent’s torture. He did not know whether any criminal case was filed on P.W.1’s father. He visited their house rarely. Thus, his evidence is not useful to the appellant to prove cruelty. 19. He did not know where both the parties stayed. He did not know whether P.W.1 had connection with his female colleague Preethisagar. He had not seen the respondent’s torture. He did not know whether any criminal case was filed on P.W.1’s father. He visited their house rarely. Thus, his evidence is not useful to the appellant to prove cruelty. 19. As discussed supra, it is the appellant, who filed the aforesaid OP against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, he has to plead and prove by producing relevant evidence. Except examining P.W.2, his cousin, he has not examined any other witness. Except filing marriage photographs, office copy of the legal notice etc., he has not filed any document. 20. It is not in dispute that cruelty is not defined in any statute. The Family Courts or this Court has to consider the allegations made by both the parties and also evidence produced by them, and assess whether same amounts to cruelty. In the present case, the appellant herein has miserably failed to prove the said cruelty. 21. But the fact remains that both the appellant and the respondent are staying separately from the year 2011. Despite holding panchayats by the elders and counseling by the police, they did not stay together. They are living separately since last 15 years. 22. It is apt to note that considering the said aspects, this Court referred the matter to the mediation. Both the appellant and the respondent agreed to obtain decree of divorce. However, the appellant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. He has paid Rs.80,000/- out of said agreed amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and he could not pay the balance amount. However, mediator filed a report stating that the mediation is unsuccessful. 23. In the light of the same, we have directed both the appellant and the respondent to appear before us for interaction. Both the appellant and the respondent appeared before us and we have interacted with them separately. During the course of interaction, appellant agreed to pay only Rs.6.00 lakhs including the said amount of Rs.80,000/- and he is not in a position to pay Rs.13,00,000/- as agreed, since he is working in a private company and his salary is only Rs.25,000/-, whereas the respondent informed us that she is willing to join the company of the appellant. During the course of interaction, appellant agreed to pay only Rs.6.00 lakhs including the said amount of Rs.80,000/- and he is not in a position to pay Rs.13,00,000/- as agreed, since he is working in a private company and his salary is only Rs.25,000/-, whereas the respondent informed us that she is willing to join the company of the appellant. She has not filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She has not filed any petition seeking execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in DVC No.368 of 2012. 24. The aforestated facts would reveal that there is strained relation between the appellant and the respondent. Admittedly, they are living separately from the year 2011, i.e., since last 15 years. There is no possibility of reunion of the parties. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the respondent suspected the appellant that he has maintained illicit relationship with his lady colleague Preethisagar. The appellant also started suspecting the respondent that she is suffering with schizophrenia and she has suicidal tendency. 25. It is settled principle of law that neither Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, the said aspect can be considered as one of the aspects along with other aspects while deciding the present appeal. 26. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though learned Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent towards her monthly maintenance in DVC No.368 of 2012, the appellant herein did not pay the said amount in compliance with the said order. However, she has not filed any application seeking execution of the said order. Only explanation offered by her is that family members of the appellant including his sister, promised her that she will convince the appellant so that, they can join together. 27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of reunion of the parties. The Family Court did not consider the said aspects in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly is set aside. 27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of reunion of the parties. The Family Court did not consider the said aspects in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly is set aside. F.C.O.P.No.166 of 2013 filed by the appellant is allowed and the marriage of the appellant with the respondent performed on 23.05.2010 is dissolved by a decree of divorce, on the condition of the appellant paying an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- including the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,000/- paid by him during mediation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said amount is towards full and final settlement towards all the claims of the respondent including her claim in DVC No.368 of 2012. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.