Telangana High Court
Sri. Anabathula Rajashekar vs Smt. Vangari Sushma on 3 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
I.A.No.1/2025
In/and
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.115 of 2024
Between:
Sri Anabathula Rajashekar, S/o.Anabathula Ganesh
Appellant
VERSUS
Smt.Vangari Sushma, W/o.Anabathula Rajashekar
Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 03.09.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
___________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
2
* THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
+ I.A.No.1/2025
In/and
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.115 of 2024
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)) %Dated 03.09.2025 # Between:
Sri Anabathula Rajashekar, S/o.Anabathula Ganesh Appellant VERSUS Smt.Vangari Sushma, W/o.Anabathula Rajashekar Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri N.Raghavendra Goud ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Rakesh Bhukya < GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :3
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/and FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.115 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar) We have heard Sri N.Raghavendra Goud, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Bhukya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 26-03-2024 passed by the Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Trial Court') in O.P.No.1716 of 2019 filed by the respondent (wife) under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') seeking a prayer to grant decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the appellant (husband), which is performed on 23-08-2018.
3. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26-03-2024 allowed the OP holding that both parties are equally responsible to bring the marriage to an end, though physically and medically fit to lead conjugal life. There are several differences of opinions, disparities and incompatibility between the 4 parties. Therefore, the learned Trial Court held that the marriage became a fiction and their marriage is dried and died for all purposes.
4. This Court vide interim orders dated 25-04-2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in F.C.A.No.115 of 2024, stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order.
5. I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed by the respondent seeking vacation of the said interim orders.
6. It is to be noted that since the allegations made by the parties against each other are extremely private in nature including that of potency related issues, this Court considered appropriate to conduct the in-camera proceedings. Accordingly, vide docket orders dated 19-08-2025, at request of learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as respondent, we have posted the matter to 26-08-2025 at 3:45 p.m. for conducting in-camera proceedings. This Court interacted with the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) on 26-08-2025 and again on 01-09-2025 individually and jointly. During interactions, we have considered the contentions of both parties extensively.
5
7. Sri N.Raghavendra Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appellant was a Software Engineer working in a private firm. He contends that prior to the marriage, when an engagement ceremony was performed on 05-07-2018, during talks the respondent expressed her reluctance to have children and concerns on her physical fitness, body shape and overall appearance due to motherhood while the appellant respected her decisions and career ambitions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining balanced approach towards marital life.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that subsequent to the marriage dated 23-08-2018, the respondent joined the appellant at his house and informed the appellant that she was suffering from dengue fever from the last 3-4 days and therefore unwell. The said ailment continued for about 2 weeks, during which period, the reception also took place. After a week, when first night was arranged on 31-08-2018 at the house of the appellant, the respondent was sent with a glass of milk into the room where the ceremony was arranged. The respondent expressed her non-recovery from dengue fever, and hence, the appellant did not insist the respondent to consummate in view of her illness. In the initial two months, the respondent displayed a notable reluctance to physical contact, 6 attributing it to shyness or the newness of their relationship owing it to the transition from parental home to marital home. The appellant retained hope that the respondent would eventually adjust and treated her with much love and affection.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that driven by love, affection and care, the appellant had regularly taken the responsibility of dropping off and pick up the respondent from her office, and upon learning of the respondent's participation in chess tournament in Mumbai, he expressed his sincere desire to accompany her to offer unwavering support and encouragement throughout the competition, whereas the appellant was insulted by the respondent before her colleagues in Mumbai.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant planned for a trip to Shillong, Meghalaya for 5 days, during which time, both of them thoroughly enjoyed. As the time elapsed, the respondent consistently avoided consummation, ultimately leading to filing of the OP before the learned Trial Court after a period of 1 year from the marriage, to cover up her faults alleging impotency and cruelty.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that respondent's doubts regarding appellant's potency, despite undergoing a 7 medical checkup for the male potency from a qualified Urologist with a certificate issuing his potency, had strained their marriage. The respondent's accusation of impotency was disproved by the medical reports confirming the husband's physical fitness.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent deliberately avoided consummation of marriage for over an year and left the matrimonial home after one-year mark, suggesting pre- planned strategy to file for divorce and potentially false cases.
13. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Bhukya, learned counsel for the respondent (wife) contended that the parents of the respondent paid an amount of Rs.7,32,000/- towards dowry. The appellant also demanded the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- p.m. from her salary. However, after discussions, the appellant and his family members agreed for receiving Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the respondent. The respondent paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. starting from 01-09-2018 continuously for about more than a year till she was sent out from the house.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that despite the respondent's insistence, the appellant had not consummated their marriage, never behaved like a potential husband both mentally and physically. The 8 appellant also used to physically harass the respondent by hitting her, pulling her hair and pouring hot oil on her hands and later apolizing for the behavour.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the suspicious nature of the appellant lead her to doubt him at every instance apart from usage of abusive language.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that within a week of marriage, the appellant demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent as well as her parents, which caused them utter shock. Thereafter the appellant kept demanding money on many such occasions repeatedly. The respondent later came to know that the appellant is used to consume alcohol and also drugs.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent proposed to go to Shillong, Meghalaya etc. where the estimated expenditure was Rs.50,000/-, for which the appellant demanded her to pay Rs.30,000/-, and even at the said places, the appellant used to consume alcohol and used to sleep claiming tiredness. Subsequently, the respondent left for her parental home. The appellant again demanded for Rs.50,000- 60,000/- when the respondent blocked his number. Later the respondent 9 (wife) filed for mutual divorce instead of going through the rigid litigation process, which was rejected by the appellant.
18. We have perused the record thoroughly.
19. The points that fall for determination by the learned Trial Court are :
"1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for?
2) To what relief ?"
20. Before the learned Trial Court, on behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. Through Court, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked.
21. During cross-examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that she completed her B.Tech., in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from G.Narayanamma Institute of College in the year 2015 and working as an employee in Airport Authority of India. Her father retired from ECIL as Technical Manager in the month of March, 2017. The appellant is working as Software Engineer by the date of marriage. During cross-examination, 10 P.W.1 deposed that she does not want to give her present address due to fear that the appellant will attack her and her family. She further deposed that she did not lodge any police complaint from 25-08-2019 till the date of her giving evidence for not having marital relationship after the marriage from 23-08-2018 till 25-08-2019 and did not inform either to Bharat Matrimony People or one Mallesham, who settled the marriage about non- consummation of her marriage.
22. However, she further revealed that she is not ready to rejoin the matrimonial life with the appellant even if he forgets the entire past and forgives her for all her acts and offers her to take back into his matrimonial life. She further deposed that she has not taken any medical treatment when the appellant attacked her with apple cutting knife, when her parents came to take her for celebrations of Vinayakachavithi festival.
23. On perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the respondent Exs.A-1 to A-12 as well as Ex.A-9 reply notice dated 03-11-2019 issued by appellant through his counsel, wherein it was mentioned as "my client not having the physical satisfaction with his wife but with a lot of patience he has waited because he loves his wife unconditionally she avoided sex for 3 months with all wrong assumptions she started to ask him to consult a 11 doctor by saying he is not potent, after she left home on 25th August 2019". Ex.A-9 further refers that "my client has requested her to take him to the hospital and to clarify if she has doubts on him but she rejected that proposal in one ground or the other". However, all the contentions were denied by the respondent. The main ground urged by the respondent for obtaining divorce from the appellant is that he failed to perform sexual intercourse with her in order to consummate the marriage apart from subjecting to cruelty.
24. During cross-examination of P.W.2, who is the father of appellant, stated that the appellant as well as respondent have travelled to various places across the country, and he came to know on 19-08-2019 that his daughter (P.W.1) is not happy in marital life and he is not ready to send his daughter for medical checkup and counseling. He is not residing in the address shown in the chief-affidavit due to life threat to him and his daughter.
25. Coming to the examination of R.W.1, the appellant herein, who deposed that during nuptial ceremony night when he asked the respondent to sleep with him, there was no cooperation from the respondent. A perusal of the examination of R.W.1 reveals that there were about 50 such 12 incidents which were not agreed by the respondent. The learned Trial Court held that for the sake of denial only, R.W.1 is denying for divorce and the same is also nothing but amounts to cruelty.
26. The evidence of C.W.1, who is one of the Member of Medical Board and Doctor deposed that he is an Urologist and working in Gandhi Hospital from 2007, and that the appellant was examined by the Department of Urology, Physician, Surgeon, Endocrinologist, Urologist, Forensic Medicine and advised routine investigations i.e. CVE, CBP, ESR, B.L.Sugar, X-Ray Chest, PA-View, Sr.Electrolyte, Sr.Creatine, ECG and Ultra Sound Abdomen. C.W.1 also performed one injection test on 08-09-2023 and pipe test on the appellant and also examined as to whether his secondary sexual character are well developed. The medical report was marked as Ex.X-1, which specifies that the appellant has no problem. However, Ex.B-1 was marked subject to objection by the respondent.
27. With respect to evidence of C.W.2, who deposed that she is a Gynecologist in Gandhi Hospital, that she along with other Medical Board members examined and investigated the respondent and evaluated by Physical Surgeon, Obstetric and Genealogy and other routine investigation. 13 Ex.X-2 Medical Report was marked stating that the respondent is medically fit for leading marital life.
28. Learned Trial Court held that the evidence of C.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.B-1, X-1 and X-2 discloses that both parties are physically and medically fit to lead marital life. However, the learned Trial Court held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the contents of Exs.A-1 to A12 and the admission in the evidence of R.W.1 clearly and clinchingly establishes that the acts of the appellant caused severe mental agony to the respondent.
29. Learned Trial Court further held that the refusal of the appellant for mutual consent decree suggested by the respondent/wife also amounts to cruelty. Moreover, the appellant's inaction to issue any legal notice for restitution of conjugal life or to file a counter-claim for restitution establishes that only for the sake of denial, the appellant is denying for divorce is also amounts to cruelty.
30. Learned Trial Court also held that the parties are living separately from 2019 and there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and marriage has irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that both parties i.e. wife and husband are equally responsible to 14 bring the marriage to an end and the record further disclosed that though both are physically and medically fit to lead conjugal life, they did not triy to resolve the issues and there are several differences of opinions, disparities, incompatibility between them, and that the acts and conduct of the appellant caused severe mental agony to the respondent therefore held that the marriage became a fiction and their marriage is dried and died for all purposes.
31. We have given our earnest attention to the various contentions raised by the parties vehemently before this Court.
32. The marriage especially under the ancient Hindu tradition emphasizes it's indissoluble nature which is a sacred sacrament, a holy union between a man and woman intended to lead the life by supporting each other in joy and adversity. It is regarded as a holy sanskar, symbolizing the eternal bond of companionship, duty and mutual respect between husband and wife. The institution of marriage is considered to be the very foundation of family life and social stability, wherein not only the spouses but also families and future generations are bound together in dharma.
15
33. It is not a contract which can be dissolved under the terms of contract, but a solemn union demanding mutual trust, respect and sacrifice for life. The sanctity of this institution rests upon the co-operation of the spouses. For it is only though harmony, understanding and companionship that the true purpose of marriage can be fulfilled. Thereby, justifying judicial intervention to formally dissolve what has already ceased to exist in substance, notwithstanding the absence specific statutory provision for irretrievable breakdown as ground for granting divorce.
34. Family Courts are enjoined to function with a humane approach, guided by the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence rather than rigid adversarial practice. So that procedural formalities do not eclipse the paramount judicial duty of upholding human dignity and mitigating the pain and distress that inevitably accompany disputes touching upon the sanctity of family life.
35. Upon considering the present facts and circumstances and also after conducting in-camera proceedings, this Court feels that unlike the procedural laws and penal laws which are enacted by the legislation, the Family Law being a welfare legislation, the same cannot be executed forcibly. It is necessary to keep in mind about the emotions of the 16 respective parties to a matrimonial dispute before passing an order of decree. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to interact with the parties jointly and separately on two occasions by way of in-camera proceedings.
36. During the in-camera proceedings conducted, the respondent/wife categorically made it clear that there is absolutely no possibility of any compromise or settlement between the parties and that she is wholly averse to any kind of marital reconciliation with the appellant/husband. The only reason given by the appellant that he has a 'fantasy' about the concept of marriage and desire to reunite with his wife on account of certain 'happy memories' as per the evidence as well as during interactions, this contention cannot be believed.
37. The allegations made by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband are extremely serious in nature including allegations of physical abuse and bordering on depravity. According to the wife, it was unbearable, which was revealed by her during in-camera proceedings as she submitted painfully about the severe mental/physical agony from the appellant from the date of marriage. Although the personal interaction with the parties reveal the above facts, we thought it prudent to carefully 17 examine the impugned order and the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Trial Court by way of abundant caution.
38. Even upon perusal of the entire evidence thoroughly, considering the stand taken by the respondent/wife regarding irreconcilable differences between the parties coupled with the allegations of physical abuse and cruelty meted out by the appellant/husband as well as the evidence relied upon by the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with or set aside the impugned order.
39. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, F.C.A.No.115 of 2024 is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
40. The parties are liberty to lead their respectively life independently, since the marriage is broken irrevocably.
________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ___________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 03.09.2025 Vsv