Telangana High Court

Mritunjay, Hyderabad vs M Rama Mani, Secunderabad on 7 August, 2025

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                                      AND
         THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                         F.C.A.NO.217 OF 2017


JUDGMENT:

(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-husband aggrieved by

the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar, dated 28.04.2017 in F.C.O.P.No.239 of

2015.

2. Appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

3.1. The appellant has filed FCOP.No.239 of 2015 under Section

13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955')

against the respondent-wife to grant decree of divorce by dissolving

his marriage performed on 09.02.2014 on the ground of cruelty.

3.2. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent

is performed on 09.02.2014 at Community Hall, WRS, Raipur

(C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of caste

elders, their parents, relatives and the near and dear and they

stayed for about three months. Thereafter, the respondent started 2/9 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_217_2017

neglecting him, changed her attitude and harassed him.

Respondent is of unaccomodative, quarrelsome and dominating in

nature and used to quarrel with the appellant on trivial issues,

abused him in vulgar and filthy language which caused mental

torture. Respondent never used to attend the household work.

Appellant used to cooperate with the respondent and used to do

whatever she directs with a hope that his wife will become normal.

Respondent under the influence of her mother and elder sister who

appealed for divorce with her husband, used to create mental

torture. Appellant vexed with the attitude of the respondent

informed the elders of the respondent and finally his wife started

leaving the house for few days without informing him and used to

join the appellant as per her convenience which went on for few

months. Respondent never permitted the appellant to utilize his

conjugal rights (i.e., sex etc.,) and did not permit him to sleep in

the common room. Respondent is a Government Employee

drawing an amount of Rs.45,000/- approximately, she never used

to contribute the same to support him financially and prayed to

grant divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. Respondent filed counter admitting the marriage and denied

rest of the allegations. On 15.10.2014, appellant's parents 3/9 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_217_2017

informed the respondent to go to her parent's house at Raipur, as

their daughter, son-in-law and their son who is studying 11th class

are coming to Secunderabad for Diwali celebrations. Respondent

did not get leave so she stayed at Uppal home only. Appellant did

not inform the respondent about the Court case. The conjugal

relationship between the parties were fine up to 09.01.2015 and

she never left the appellant's home before the above said date. On

09.01.2015, her mother came to her Flat No.202, at Road No.14,

Surya Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad at about 6.30 A.M. and then she

left home for IRISET, Secunderabad at about 8.15 A.M. At about

10.30 A.M., the appellant informed the respondent's mother that

he has to go to Hospital regarding some post operation problem of

his father's eye surgery so that he will drop the respondent's

mother at the respondent's cousin brother's home which is nearer

to Gandhi Hospital. At about 7.00 P.M., appellant gave message to

the respondent on her mobile CUG No.9701370845 that "My father

developed a post operation infection and rise in BP so he is

admitted and under observation". For the first time on

27.08.2014, respondent stayed at her cousin brother's house with

her mother which is nearer to Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad,

Secunderabad. On 20.02.2015, respondent received a Court 4/9 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_217_2017

Notice in her office at about 3.30 P.M. and prayed to dismiss the

O.P. for divorce and allow the counter claim for Restitution of

Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1956.

5. No Court fee is paid on the counter claim and there is no

pleading to that effect. The learned Trial Court has taken up the

O.P. for Divorce.

6. Appellant is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

Respondent is examined as RW.1, no documents are marked on

her side.

7. The Trial Court after going through the evidence led by the

parties and perusing the documents on record, came to a

conclusion that the appellant has not made out any case for grant

of divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the same.

8. Notice to the respondent is served but she failed to make her

appearance.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial

Court went wrong in not considering the fact that the appellant did

not live happily with the respondent even for three months and 5/9 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_217_2017

also failed to note that the parties are living separately since 2014

and that the respondent has made the appellant's life miserable.

The Trial Court went wrong in not considering that the respondent

wanted the appellant to leave his parents and other family

members to get separated from them so that she can live

independently, in that event it would become more torturous for

the appellant to stay with the respondent-wife. In support of his

contentions, relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Smt.Roopa

Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni 1, (2) D.Narsimha @ Narsimlu Vs. Smt.

D.Anita @ Vaishnavi 2, and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record.

11. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned

order suffers from any perversity, illegality and if so, does it

requires interference of this Court?

12. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.P1 (Wedding Card),

Ex.P2 (Driving license of the appellant), Ex.P3 (Pan Card of the

appellant). Ex.P4 is the Medical Certificates (two in number), one

in the name of Lakshmi Kumari, aged about 60 years that she is

2023 INSC 814

CMA No.68 of 2022, dated 21.06.2024 of The High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

                                 6/9                       MB,J & BRMR,J
                                                          FCA_217_2017




suffering   with   "Malignant    Hypertension,   Diabetes    Mellitus,

Hypothyroidism".    She needs every month medical checkup and

Lab investigations to adjust the medications.        Second Medical

Certificate is of the appellant that he is suffering with Hypertension

for past 6 months i.e., May, 2014 and is under medication, he

needs regular follow up and checkup.

13. The evidence of the appellant is the replica of the petition

averments. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not

mentioned the specific words of dominating (harassment nature),

vulgar and filthy language used by the respondent and did not file

any document to show that the respondent's elder sister filed

divorce petition against her husband, so also he has not mentioned

about the words of mental torture in the petition or in the chief

affidavit and has not mentioned the type of monitory loss he has

sustained. Before filing the petition for divorce, he has not issued

notice to the respondent.

14. The evidence of the respondent is the replica of her counter.

In her cross-examination, she stated that she do not know that her

brother-in-law filed divorce OP against her sister and that after 6

months, she was transferred to South Central Zone, Secunderabad 7/9 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_217_2017

from South East Zone and her father died due to Heart attack.

RW.1 denied the suggestion that she used to beat her mother-in-

law with cell phone. Except putting suggestions to the respondent,

no incriminating material is elicited from the cross-examination of

the witness, so also no suggestion is put to the witness that she

abused the appellant in filthy language due to which he suffered

cruelty in her hands.

15.1. In Smt. Roopa Soni1, the Supreme Court held that "For a

decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly

stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and

the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal

decree of divorce".

15.2. In D.Narsimha2, it is observed that "the respondent-wife has

admitted that the parties lived together as husband and wife only

for 3 months and that she is living apart from the appellant for

7 years immediately preceding the date of the cross-examination

which was on 16.03.2021". The above two decisions do not assist

the case of the appellant in view of the fact that the facts in the

present Appeal did not match with the cases cited.

                                      8/9                           MB,J & BRMR,J
                                                                   FCA_217_2017

16. The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh 3 set

out illustrative cases where inference of 'mental cruelty' can be

drawn:

(x) "The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty".

17. Except the testimony of the appellant, no other evidence is

placed by him to show that he underwent cruelty in the hands of

his wife. The appellant failed to examine his parents or any other

witness to substantiate his contention that it is the respondent

who is at fault and that she abused him in filthy language and was

in a dominating nature. In the absence of any evidence from the

appellant side, it cannot be said that he underwent cruelty in the

hands of his wife. As stated supra in Samar Ghosh case3, marital

life should be reviewed as a whole and few isolated instances over a

period of years will not amount to cruelty.





    (2007) 4 SCC 511
                                 9/9                         MB,J & BRMR,J
                                                            FCA_217_2017

18. Appellant failed to prove his case and also failed to lead any

evidence in support of his contention, the learned Trial Court has

appreciated the evidence in detail and rightly held that the

appellant has not proved the case and dismissed the O.P.

19. We are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court

has rightly dismissed the FCOP by assigning sufficient reasons and

we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

20. FCA No.217 of 2017 is dismissed.

Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous

application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

___________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J