Telangana High Court
P Sandeep, Hyd vs P.Radhika , T.Radhika, Hyd on 30 March, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.220 of 2016
Date:30.03.2026
Between:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx ......appellant
and
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ......respondent
This Court made the following
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. S. Raghu ram, learned counsel representing Smt. K.Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellant. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
2. This Family Court appeal is preferred by the appellant-husband challenging the order dated 27.07.2016 passed in F.C.O.P No.1227 of 2011 by the learned Family Court, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the Wife. The appellant - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP No.1227 of 2011 2 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955') against the respondent - wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending on the following grounds:
i. His marriage with the respondent - wife was performed on 23.04.2008.
ii. It was an arranged marriage. There were no issues out of their lawful wedlock.
iii. She used to visit her parental home very frequently without information to the appellant or his family members. iv. In July, 2009, the respondent conceived, but due to severe ill health and lack of proper self-care, the pregnancy was aborted in September, 2009.
v. She was suffering from tuberculosis. vi. On her wish, he got her to pursue B.Ed. course. While studying
she used to visit her parents' house and thereafter her behaviour became worse.
3
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 vii. There was lack of understanding and cooperation from her.
When he informed the same to her parents, they abused him in filthy language and forcibly took her to their house. viii. In August 2010, in the presence of elders, they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was reduced to writing.
ix. As per the said MOU, she received all the gold ornaments and other articles belonging to her as listed therein. He also paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash to her and agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of passing of decree of divorce.
x. In December, 2010, both the parties have filed OP No. 82 of 2011 seeking divorce through mutual consent. xi. On 05-09-2011, when he went to the Court to pay the said balance amount to her in terms of the MOU, she did not attend the Court and instead she filed an affidavit stating that she was not interested in divorce and she was ready to join him. Therefore, the Court had dismissed the said OP No. 82 of 2011 on 05.09.2011.
4
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 xii. On the complaint lodged by her with false allegation that he demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. 17.09.2011, when he was away from home, the police took his parents to P.S.,Madannapet and abused in filthy language. xiii. Since August, 2009, she was living separately from him and there is no hope of reunion between them.
4. With the said contentions, the appellant sought decree of divorce from his wife.
5. The respondent herein filed counter opposing the said petition filed by the appellant contending:-
i. At the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, four tulas Gold, ½ tula gold ring, a two wheeler and household utensils to him, the same is reduced into writing and signed by father of the appellant. ii. She had conceived and the pregnancy was aborted in September, 2009.
iii. The appellant, with the help of the President, Mr. Bhasker, of their Community Sangham, forcibly obtained her signature on 5 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), though she was not willing to go for divorce.
iv. Later, he persuaded her to state before the Court that she was not interested to obtain divorce by mutual consent, assuring her that he could continue the marital relationship. v. She made the said statement before the Court hoping that he would continue marital life.
vi. After dismissal of O.P.No.82 of 2011, she resided with him in his house.
vii. During that period, he took back the aforesaid cash and the gold ornaments.
viii. In September 2011, he sent her to her parents' house with a promise that he would take her back to his home within a week. Instead, he filed the present O.P. seeking divorce. ix. She never suffered with Tuberculosis and she is willing to undergo any medical test to prove the same.
6. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the said OP filed by husband.
6
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016
7. In order to prove the case of the appellant, he himself examined as PW.1 He also examined his father as PW.2, Dr. Roya Rozati as PW.3 and Dr. K.P Rajender Kumar as P.W.4 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8. Ex.P.1 is wedding card. Ex.P2 is wedding photographs. Ex.P3 is petition in OP 82/2011. Ex.P4 is terms of compromise, dated 10.1.2011. Ex.P5 is medical records. Ex.P6 is "Oppanda Patramu" executed by the respondent - wife. Ex.P7 and P8 are letters, dated 6.9.2010 and dated 13-10-2009.
8. Respondent herself examined as RW1 and marked Exs.R1, Nischithardha Patramu (Engagement Deed) dated 23.03.2008. Ex.X.1 is a copy of final diagnoses of the respondent issued by Owaisi Hospital and Research Centre.
9. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 27.07.2016 learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed the said O.P. holding that the ground of cruelty was not substantiated since P.W.2, father of appellant, does not speak about any acts of cruelty on the part of the respondent - wife and the respondent also made it clear that her husband supported her when she suffered from health issues. The learned Family Court further held that the respondent - wife left the company of the appellant - husband in the 7 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 first week of September, 2010, and the date of filing of present O.P. is 23.09.2011 which does not fulfill the statutory requirement of two years of desertion as stipulated by law.
10. Challenging the said decree, the appellant - husband filed the present appeal.
11. Perused the record. It is not in dispute that the parties herein are legally wedded couple and they have no issues.
12. Appellant examined as PW.1 and deposed that right from the marriage, respondent was arrogant and non-cooperative and never tried to mingle with his family members. The respondent was diagnosed as suffering from T.B. In August, 2010 on elaborate talks between both the parties, their parents and caste elders, they entered into MOU with specific terms mentioned therein and filed a petition vide O.P NO.82 of 2011 for divorce with mutual consent. But she turned around and stated that she wants to live marital life with him. He further stated that during her stay with the appellant, she acted in a cruel manner, leaving the marital home without his knowledge and she deserted him in August 2009.
8
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016
13. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he is not interested in taking her back, even though she is willing to join him for the reason that she was suffering from tuberculosis and to prove the same, he filed Ex.P.5 - medical certificate and prescription to that effect.
14. PW.2, the father of PW.1, deposed on the same lines to that of PW.1. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not make any effort to reconcile the parties and bring them together. The respondent is always willing to stay with the appellant. A doctor at KIMS informed that she had no chance of giving birth to a child. He did not give any complaint to any authority or individual with regard to her behavior till date. He further admitted that he does not know the reason for the gap of three months between the dismissal of the mutual consent divorce petition and the filing of the present O.P. He further admitted that he had issued a cheque to her when both the parties filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Even after dismissal of the said petition, he did not instruct his bank to stop payment of the cheque issued in Court.
15. PW.3, Professor and Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Owaisi Hospital and Deccan Medical College, 9 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 deposed that the respondent had a history of one missed abortion. She was advised to undergo anti-tubercular treatment. She was subsequently examined on 07.10.2010 and was advised to continue the anti-tubercular treatment. He further deposed that she has less than 10% chances of conceiving, subject to further advanced treatment.
16. During cross-examination, he admitted that when the respondent was admitted as an in-patient in their hospital, treatment was given partly with a view to enable her to conceive in future. He did not provide any other treatment. He also admitted that the respondent was not definitively diagnosed with tuberculosis and that it was only a provisional diagnosis, for which complete reports were yet to be obtained.
17. PW.4, a T.B. Medical Officer at Osmania General Hospital, deposed that the respondent approached him to conceive and was suffering from secondary infertility. She produced documents relating to a diagnostic laparoscopy, which indicated symptoms of Koch's disease (tuberculosis). He treated the respondent and her T.B. number was 47 of 2010. The treatment continued for about six months. During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that she was brought by her mother-in-law, who was working as a Head Nurse. He further 10 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 admitted that it was a case of extra-pulmonary (general) Koch's tuberculosis. He does not examine the genital areas to determine whether a person is suffering from tuberculosis, but relies on the report of the gynecologist. Any patient would recover after undergoing treatment for a period of six months. The respondent had taken treatment for six months, attended follow-up regularly, and the treatment concluded on 21.08.2010, during which period her weight increased from 40 kgs. to 43 kgs.
18. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1. She deposed that on instigation of Mr. Bhasker, the President of the Sangam,she signed the MOU even though she was not interested to obtain divorce. She stated that she never suffered from any disease like tuberculosis and that the prescriptions filed by the appellant were created for the purpose of filing the present O.P. She stated that she received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant, along with gold ornaments, and a post-dated cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-. She further stated that after the dismissal of the petition for divorce with mutual consent, she stayed with the appellant, and gave back the aforesaid cash and gold articles to him The post-dated cheque was also not encashed and was taken back. She deposed that in September 11 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 2011, she was sent by him to her parents' house persuading her to stay there for one week and take rest. The appellant asked her to sign stamp papers intending to open a locker and depositing money in FDRs, and believing his words in good faith, she signed them, however, the same were later used as Oppanda Patram, which is marked as Ex.P6. When she attempted to return and live with him, she was not allowed to enter the house. She asserted that there was no desertion on her part at any time and after dismissal of the petition for divorce by mutual consent, she and her husband lived together for more than a month in September 2011. At the time of marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 4 tulas Gold, ½ tula gold ring, two wheeler and household utensils and same was reduced into writing which is Ex.B.1.
19. During cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that her mother- in-law had taken her to Owaisi Hospital for a check-up on 12.01.2010. She further admitted that the outpatient card dated 30.08.2010 issued by KIMS contains the same patient details as those in the Owaisi Hospital discharge card, and that the Gynecology card of Modern Government Maternity Hospital bears her phone number. She also 12 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 admitted that she had seen Ex.P.5 - medical record immediately after appearing in the case and receiving copies of the documents, she did not dispute the existence or correctness of the said document. She further admitted her signature, along with the signatures of her parents, on Ex.P.6 - Oppanda patram dated 20.09.2010, but did not explain under what circumstances her parents had signed the same. She also admitted her signatures on it. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 letters shows that the contents were written by some other person.
20. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the marriage of the parties was performed on 23.04.2008 and it is an arranged marriage. They are issueless. On 10.01.2011, they entered into Ex.P.4 - terms of compromise agreeing to take divorce with mutual consent with specific terms mentioned there. In pursuance of Ex.P.4, they filed a petition vide O.P. No.82 of 2011 seeking divorce with mutual consent on the ground that there is no compatibility between the parties. According to the said Deed of terms of compromise entered into between the parties, certain amounts and articles were also exchanged between them. However, at the stage of consideration of the said petition, the respondent expressed before the Court that she was not 13 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 willing to proceed with the divorce and that she desired to continue the marital relationship with the appellant. Consequently, the said petition for divorce with mutual consent came to be dismissed on 05.09.2011.
21. Thereafter, the appellant has filed the present OP against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It is to be seen that there should be two years of desertion prior to the date of filing of OP in terms of Section 13(1) (ib) of the Act, 1955. In the present case, the appellant filed the aforesaid OP on 23.09.2011 contending that the respondent deserted him in August, 2009.
22. As discussed supra, both the appellant and respondent decided to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent. They have also entered into a deed of compromise on the specific terms mentioned therein. They have filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage with mutual consent, in January, 2011. The same was dismissed on 05.09.2011. In the said petition, they have specifically stated that they are staying separately from August, 2009 and the respondent was residing at her parents house. Both of them decided to depart from marital relation and 14 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 decision was taken on 20.09.2009. As discussed supra, the said OP was dismissed on 05.09.2011 and thereafter, the appellant has filed the aforesaid FCOP No.1227 of 2011 on 23.09.2011. Respondent admitted the said facts during her cross-examination.
23. It is also apt to note that the respondent had executed Ex.B.6 Oppandapatram wherein she has stated that she is not in a position to lead marital life with the appellant due to personal reasons. On return of Rs.5 Lakhs paid by her parents towards furniture and other purpose and return of 5½ tulas of gold, there will not be any relation between the appellant and respondent. She has executed the said Oppandapatram in the presence of her father, brothers, maternal uncle, other family members and also elders.
24. In Ex.P.7 letter, she has specifically mentioned that she could not conceive and unable to give birth to the children. She is suffering with Tuberculosis. She got laparoscopy operation and her tubes got damaged. Even then, her husband is supporting her but her parents are not agreeing for operation. Because of this, she was moving to her home with her parents with complete willingness. Her husband is no way responsible. She incurred an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards surgery and her parents have not agreed to pay 15 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 the said amount. Her in-laws are willing for second surgery and to pay the amount completely. Therefore, she is leaving home with her own and her in-laws are no way responsible for leaving home. Her parents are not willing for her surgery. Her husband can go for any decision. She is fully agreed for the same.
25. In Ex.P.8 - letter she has stated that she does not have any problem with her in-laws. The appellant is a B.Tech. graduate. The respondent completed her M.A. B.Ed. qualification. Both of them are highly qualified.
26. As discussed supra, according to the appellant, respondent suffered with Tuberculosis and her pregnancy got aborted. There is no possibility of she conceiving. The said facts show that there is strained relation between the appellant and respondent. Therefore, they have decided to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent and accordingly, they have entered into Ex.P.4 - deed of compromise dated 10.01.2011 and filed Ex.P.3 petition vide O.P.No.82 of 2011. Thereafter, respondent turned around and decided not to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent. Therefore, the said OP was dismissed on 05.09.2011.
16
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016
27. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the respondent has lodged a complaint with Police against the appellant and his parents and in his absence, the police came to his house and took his parents. They have also abused his parents in filthy language. Though she expressed her willingness to join the company of the appellant, she did not file any petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She did not make any effort through mediators and elders etc., to join the company of the appellant. Though she has deposed that on the instigation of Mr. Bhasker, the President of her caste Sangham, she signed MOU, she did not taken steps to examine the said Bhasker or any person in proof of the same.
28. To prove that the respondent suffered with Tuberculosis, the appellant has examined P.Ws.3 and 4 - Doctors. PW.3 specifically stated that the respondent suffered with Tuberculosis and she was advised to undergo anti - tuburcular treatment. P.W.4 deposed that the respondent approached him to conceive and was suffering from secondary infertility. Therefore, they decided to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent. Though they filed the aforesaid OP No.82 of 2011 seeking dissolution of marriage with mutual consent, it 17 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 could not be materialize. Respondent expressed her willingness to lead marital life with the respondent. She did not take any steps in doing so. She did not file any application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 against the appellant seeking restoration of conjugal life. She has admitted the said facts during the cross-examination.
29. It is apt to note that respondent has stated that she has received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant along with gold ornaments and also post-dated cheque for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- after dismissal of the aforesaid OP No.82 of 2011 filed by them seeking dissolution of marriage with mutual consent, she stayed with the appellant, gave back the gold ornaments. She did not encash the post-dated cheques. However, she did not examine any witness to prove the same. She has not cross-examined the appellant (P.W.1) to the said effect. However, in Ex.P.6 - Oppandapatram, she has mentioned that if the appellant pays the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and returns 5½ tulas of gold, she would not have any relation with the appellant. Though there the Ex.P.6 - Oppandapatram is undated, it was purchased on 20.09.2010. During the cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that she has studied M.A. Eng., and B.Ed. She 18 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 has admitted that Ex.X.1 final diagnosis of the respondent issued by Owaisi Hospital, dated 30.12.2009 relates to her and during the said period, she was living with her husband and in-laws. She has admitted that her mother-in--law took her for check up to Owaisi Hospital. During cross-examination, she has further admitted that said Owaisi hospital reports in Ex.P.5 belongs to her. She has admitted her father's signature in Ex.P.6. She has also admitted her signatures on Exs.7 and P.8. She has also admitted that she did not state in her counter that her husband obtained signature on stamp paper informing her that it is for the purpose of opening locker and putting money in FDR and the same is used for Ex.P.6 - Oppandapatram. She has also admitted that she has not stated in her chief examination affidavit as well as in her counter, the details of her stay with her husband as regards to the dates and places of their staying together after dismissal of OP No.82 of 2011. She has not filed any proof to show that she returned cash and gold ornaments after dismissal of OP No.82 of 2011.
30. The contents of Ex.R.1 is to the exchange of cash and articles mentioned therein as per the prevailing custom. As per Ex.P.4 19 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 deed of terms of compromise for obtaining divorce with mutual consent.
31. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is strained relation between the appellant and respondent. Admittedly, they are not staying together from 2009 onwards. They have filed the aforesaid two OPs in June, 2011 and September, 2011.
32. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid OPs.
33. As discussed supra, this Court is of the view that the respondent suffered with Tuberculosis and infertility problem. The said facts are also evident from the depositions of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the same not a ground to obtain decree of divorce. Admittedly, they are staying separately from 2009 onwards. The said facts were specifically mentioned in Ex.P.3 i.e. petition in O.P.No.82 of 2011 and Ex.P.4 deed of terms of compromise. Therefore, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is irretrievably broken down. They are staying separately since last 17 years. There is no possibility of re- union.
20
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016
34. It is settled principle of law that neither Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievably broken down of marriage alone. However, the said aspect can be considered along with other aspects.
35. As discussed supra, to prove the cruelty and desertion, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and his father as P.W.2. He has also examined P.Ws.3 and 4 Doctors to prove that the respondent is suffering with Tuberculosis and also facing infertility problem. Respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and she did not examine any other person.
36. Without considering the said aspects, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid OP. Therefore, it is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects and it is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. Despite granting liberty, there is no representation on behalf of respondent.
37. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.07.2016 passed in FCOP No.1227 of 2011 by the learned Family Court, Hyderabad is set aside. FCOP No.1227 of 2011 is allowed. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent held on 23.04.3008 is dissolved by way of decree of divorce. 21
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.220 of 2016 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal case shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ___________________________________ JUSTICE B.R MADHUSUDHAN RAO Date:30.03.2026.
VVR