Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 210 (TS)

XXXXX v. XXXXX

2026-01-30

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, K.LAKSHMAN

body2026
JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. 1. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.05.2013 in O.P.No.420 of 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, appellant preferred the present appeal. 3. Appellant is the husband, and the respondent is the wife. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 28.04.1990 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. The marriage was consummated. They were blessed with two male children. The first son by name M.Tarun was born on 20.07.1991 and second son Gaurav was born on 21.4.1998. They are now 35 and 29 years, respectively. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, both of them settled in U.S.A. 4. The appellant/husband filed the aforesaid Original Petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage, contending that immediately after the marriage he noticed harsh behavior on the part of the respondent. The respondent was indifferent, reluctant, and eccentric in her conduct. 5. It is further alleged that the appellant was transferred to Hosur, Tamil Nadu, in December 1990. The respondent was habituated to act according to the dictates of her parents, who instigated her to tease and harass the appellant. The respondent began teasing the appellant by comparing his status, salary, and the financial position of his parents with others. When the appellant politely requested the respondent’s parents not to meddle in their family life, the respondent continued her conduct. 6. The respondent used to sleep for long hours, claiming that she was unwell. She openly expressed on several occasions that she did not like the appellant’s family members. She was not acquainted with cooking and failed to maintain the household in a neat and clean manner. 7. The respondent deserted the appellant at Nagpur in 1994. Upon transfer, the appellant set up a family at Bangalore, where both the appellant and respondent resided until December 1994. During this period, the respondent began comparing the appellant with his co-brother and demanded unnecessary household articles such as a dryer and an air conditioner. The respondent voluntarily deserted the appellant, compelling him to issue a legal notice dated 07.12.1994 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, as the respondent failed to join him. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Chandigarh. During this period, the respondent began comparing the appellant with his co-brother and demanded unnecessary household articles such as a dryer and an air conditioner. The respondent voluntarily deserted the appellant, compelling him to issue a legal notice dated 07.12.1994 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, as the respondent failed to join him. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Chandigarh. The respondent again deserted the appellant during Deepavali in 1998. The marriage has irretrievably broken down. On 19.10.2007, being the day of Durgashtami, the respondent picked up a quarrel with the appellant and left the matrimonial home. When the appellant approached the respondent and requested her to resume marital life, the respondent demanded divorce. 8. The respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that, as per the demand of the appellant and his parents, her parents paid net cash of Rs.5,00,000/- 15 tulas of gold ornaments, household articles worth Rs.1,50,000/-, and silver articles such as pooja items, two plates, and four glasses worth Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage. From the very date of marriage, the appellant started picking quarrels with the respondent. The mother of the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry given by the respondent’s parents and subjected the respondent to both physical and mental harassment by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. 9. It is further alleged that the appellant did not allow the respondent to meet her parents, nor were her parents permitted to meet her. The appellant continued to harass the respondent and ill-treat her mentally and physically, repeatedly demanding additional dowry. In the year 1993, the appellant brutally assaulted the respondent. Consequently, the respondent approached the police station seeking protection, where counseling was conducted and the appellant was warned not to repeat such acts in future. 10. It is further alleged that the appellant used to abuse the respondent, beat her, and prevent her from attending her office. He also harassed the respondent by demanding that she hand over her entire salary. The respondent suffered immense physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the appellant. The eldest son of the respondent secured admission to an Engineering College at Hyderabad. The appellant refused to join him or pay the requisite fees. When the respondent questioned the appellant about the same, he assaulted both the respondent and the child. 11. The respondent suffered immense physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the appellant. The eldest son of the respondent secured admission to an Engineering College at Hyderabad. The appellant refused to join him or pay the requisite fees. When the respondent questioned the appellant about the same, he assaulted both the respondent and the child. 11. It is further alleged that the appellant developed an illicit relationships with other women, and whenever the respondent questioned his conduct, he threatened her. The respondent filed D.V.C. No. 94 of 2011, which is pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 12. The respondent submits that she is ready and willing to join the company of the appellant and lead a marital life, provided the appellant gives an undertaking before the Family Court that he will not repeat the acts of harassment. It is specifically contended that it is the appellant who neglected, ill-treated, and assaulted the respondent. 13. To prove the said ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’, appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and an advocate as P.W.2. He filed Exs.P1 to P10. 14. To disprove the said ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’, respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and filed Ex.R1, letter executed by the appellant on 16.09.1999. 15. It is the specific contention of the appellant herein that from the date of marriage, the respondent behaved indifferently and reluctant manner. She used to act on the advise of her parents. Respondent always compares her salary with the salary of the appellant and also the salary of her sister’s husband. She also abused him in filthy language. She left him in the year 1994 once. She joined him in the year 2002. Again she left his company in the year 2007. Though, he made said allegations, he failed to examine any witness except P.W.2/advocate. According to him, he conducted counseling to both the parties. 16. Perusal of record would also reveal that the learned Family Court conducted counseling and interacted with the parties. 17. Respondent expressed her willingness to join the company of the appellant. 18. According to the respondent, appellant maintained an extra-marital relation with another woman, but respondent failed to examine any person and failed to prove the same during cross-examination of P.W.1. Though, she has alleged that the appellant maintained extra-marital relation with another woman and that she found the appellant and his colleague on a bike, she has not examined anybody. 18. According to the respondent, appellant maintained an extra-marital relation with another woman, but respondent failed to examine any person and failed to prove the same during cross-examination of P.W.1. Though, she has alleged that the appellant maintained extra-marital relation with another woman and that she found the appellant and his colleague on a bike, she has not examined anybody. She has not filed any proof. 19. Perusal of the record would also reveal that she lodged a complaint with the police. On receipt of the said complaint, police conducted counseling to both of them. 20. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was 45 years as on the date of filing of the OP in the year 2011 and respondent was 41 years. She is Central Government employee and working in Survey of India. According to her, she has 4 ½ years service. Appellant is 61 years now and respondent is 56 years. Their sons are aged 35, and 29 years, respectively. Both of them settled in U.S.A. 21. According to the appellant, the respondent deserted him on 19.10.2008. He has not examined any witness and did not file any proof. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by the appellant. The impugned order is a reasoned and well founded. There is no error in it. Appellant herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order. 22. In the light of the same, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.