Telangana High Court
K. Latha Gadila Latha vs Kalreddy Gopal Reddy on 28 May, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.22 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order
dated 12.11.2024 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at
Zaheerabad.
2. The respondent herein/husband had filed an application
against the appellant/wife before the trial Court vide
H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (1i) of Hindu
Marriage Act, for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and
adultery. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf
of the respondent/husband and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 on his
behalf. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the
respondents, but no documents were filed on their behalf. The
trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides
allowed the application by granting a decree of divorce.
Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/wife preferred the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/wife stated that
appellant/wife was suffering from permanent visual low vision
with 40% disability as per the disability certificate issued by the
Medical Board of District Head Quarter Hospital, Sanga Reddy.
Respondent/husband is handicapped with right leg, polio
affected. Both of them love each other and then with the
consent of the elders marriage was performed on 26.05.2010.
While the appellant was residing in her in-laws house, when her
husband did not came to home, her mother-in-law blamed her
that she killed the respondent. At another instance respondent
poured kerosene on her to torch and she escaped unhurt, the
brother of the respondent hit her and also abused her, as such
they shifted to a rented house and stayed there for three years.
The respondent/husband used to go to the pan shop and return
home drunk. She was surviving on the government pension of
Rs.1,500/- given to the disabled persons. Later, they shifted to
Mungi Adi Lakshmi Temple Ashramam, as tenants in 2017 and
started a Tiffin center. When the appellant/wife got affected by
Covid in 2020 and treating in a Government Hospital by staying
at her parents, respondent/husband made several allegations
against her, as such she gave complaint in 'Sakhi'. She has also
filed a maintenance case and is still pending. The marriage
between the parties was consummated for a period of 12 years.
Though she was ready and willing to join the company of the
respondent, the trial Court erroneously granted a decree of
divorce. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of
the trial Court.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.
5. The brief facts of the case are that as per the affidavit filed
by the respondent/husband in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, the
marriage of the appellant with respondent was performed on
26.05.2010, as per Hindu rites and customs, at Mamidgi
Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District. At the time of
marriage, respondent/husband was working as Accountant in
IKP (Indira Kranthi Pathakam) center. Whereas, appellant/wife
was attending the self help group meetings. In such a way, both
of them fell in love and later informed the same to their parents.
Later, their marriage was performed. It seems that both of them
resided together separately in the year 2013.
Respondent/husband opened a Pan shop at Mungi X Road and
attending the shop from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, but
appellant/wife never prepared lunch for him. He himself used to
prepare the food and she was also scolding him and his mother
without any reason, as such they vacated his mother's house
and shifted to a rented house. As there was no change in her
attitude the owner of the house, asked them to vacate the
house. Later, they shifted to a room in Mungi Audi Lakshmi
Temple Ashramam on a monthly rent basis and also started a
Tiffin center with the permission of temple committee.
Subsequently, appellant/wife brought her mother to assist in
running Tiffin center, but her mother collected excess amount
than the amount fixed by the committee, as such business was
closed. They are not blessed with children for several years, as
such he spent Rs.1,30,000/- for fertility.
6. It was further stated that one day appellant/wife has
taken away all the costly items i.e., household items, 1.5 tulas
of Gold chain of his mother and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from
almarah in his absence and went to her parents' house. When
he requested her to join his company, she refused to join him
and gave complaint in Sakhi center, Sanga Reddy District and
asked for divorce before them. In October, 2019,
respondent/husband got a call from Sakhi center and they
enquired about the issue. When he requested the appellant/wife
before the Sakhi authorities to join him, she has not shown any
interest, as such Sakhi authorities suggested them to approach
appropriate Court. She also gave an interview in I-Dream You-
Tube Channel on 11.10.2019, in which she stated that she want
divorce from the respondent/husband. In December, 2019,
respondent/husband conducted Panchayat in the presence of
village elders, but the appellant/wife joined him on a condition
to provide 3 tulas of gold to her. Accordingly,
respondent/husband obtained hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from
one B.Srinivas Reddy and promised to purchase the gold, as
such she joined him after one month. Later, he came to know
that one person namely Nagesh, developed illegal intimacy with
his wife and she was roaming with him on his bike. When he
saw them, he conducted Panchayat before the elders. The
appellant/wife has taken Rs.1,50,000/- from almarah and
Rs.86,000/- from his Kiddi Bank. In the Panchayat, she
expressed her unwillingness to continue marital life with the
respondent/husband and also gave complaint before the
Women's Police Station, Sanga Reddy. Later, there was mutual
consent between him and his wife and entered into
Memorandum of Understanding on 22.06.2022 and accordingly,
the respondent/husband had paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-
towards permanent alimony, but later his wife refused to sign
on mutual consent and the said Nagesh interfered in the issue,
threatened him and demanded Rs.10,00,000/-, as such he gave
complaint against the Nagesh in Cr.No.104 of 2022, for the
offence punishable under Section 387, 389, 504 and 506 of IPC
and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was
numbered as C.C.No.4188 of 2022. Therefore, requested the
Court to grant decree of divorce.
7. In the counter filed by the appellant/wife in
H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, she admitted the marriage and stated
that at the time of marriage her parents gave 5 tulas of gold,
household articles and other items worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and
cash of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the demands of
respondent/husband and his family members. She denied all
other allegations leveled against her.
8. Though in the appeal grounds, she mentioned that
marriage was consummated between them for 12 years, she has
not raised the said issue in her counter at the earliest point of
time. Respondent/husband stated that he had spent
Rs.1,30,000/- towards fertility as she has not conceived even
after several years of marriage. In H.M.O.P,
respondent/husband stated that appellant/wife was having
relationship with one Mallesh in Para No.12 and 13 and
contended that he conducted Panchayat before elders regarding
the said issue, but in Para No.15, he stated that she was having
relationship with one Nagesh. It seems both the appellant and
respondent entered into memorandum of understanding on
22.06.2022 and the respondent/husband agreed to give
Rs.3,50,000/- to the appellant/wife as per the said
understanding and she has acknowledged the same by way of
separate receipt. Respondent/husband contended that even
after receiving the amount, Nagesh insisted him to give
Rs.10,00,000/- and the appellant/wife has also refused to sign
the same. Respondent/husband gave legal notice to the
appellant/wife on 30.07.2022. Though, the appellant/wife
received the notice, did not give any reply. In an interview given
by her in the You-Tube Channel, she clearly stated she did not
want to reside with him, as such he sought for divorce on the
ground of cruelty and adultery, but the trial Court observed that
adultery was not established. Mere allegation is not a sufficient
ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery
and granted divorce to the respondent/husband on the ground
of cruelty.
9. Admittedly, appellant and respondent are disabled
persons, they love each other and married in the year 2010, but
respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P for divorce in the year 2022.
They are not blessed with any children. Respondent/husband
stated that he incurred Rs.1,30,000/- towards fertility
expenses. Appellant/wife in her appeal grounds stated that
there was consummation of marriage, but she has not
mentioned it in her counter at the earliest point of time, as such
it cannot be believed. Though the respondent/husband made
allegation against adultery of the appellant/wife with Nagesh, he
failed to prove the same. Respondent/husband further stated
that as the said Nagesh threatened him, he gave complaint
against Nagesh in Cr.No.104 of 2022, and after investigation
police filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.4188 of 2022. When
respondent/husband made serious allegation of adultery
against appellant/wife, it is for him to establish the same, as
such the trial Court rightly held that marriage cannot be
dissolved on the ground of adultery.
10. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 1 , the apex Court
relying on its earlier judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu
Kohli 2 observed certain incidents of cruelty in paragraph
No.101 which are as under:-
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances
(2007) 4 SCC 511
(2006) 4 SCC 558
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as
would not make possible for the parties to live with
each other could come within the broad parameters of
mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly
clear that situation is such that the wronged party
cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the other
spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of
deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one
spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time
may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of
one spouse actually affecting physical and mental
health of the other spouse. The treatment complained
of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be
very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal
standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to
mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also
amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes
unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset
may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day
life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(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 behaviour of a spouse, the wronged
party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other
party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilisation without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical
reason or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to
mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any
physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may
amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the
matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does
not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of
the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to
mental cruelty.
11. Respondent/husband stated that she has taken away
gold, household articles and cash, in his absence without his
permission. He also stated that he agreed to purchase 3 tulas of
gold to her at her instance and also obtained hand loan of 1 ½
lakh from one Srinivas, but she has taken away from him along
with Rs.86,000/- from his kiddi bank without his knowledge.
The said attitude of the appellant/wife definitely amounts to
cruelty on her part. As the appellant/wife is not interested to
live with him, she also entered into memorandum of
understanding and received permanent alimony of
Rs.3,50,000/- and later refused the same to grant divorce, and
thus the trial Court considering all the aspects rightly granted a
decree of divorce. Though the appellant/wife preferred an
appeal and contended that respondent/husband was addicted
to bad vices and they were separated due to interference of her
sisters-in-law, the trial Court without appreciating the facts
properly, decreed the O.P in favour of the respondent/husband,
the appellant/wife has not stated regarding interference of
sisters-in-law and also regarding bad vices against the
respondent in her counter, but came up with the said
allegations in the appeal grounds. Though the marriage between
the appellant and respondent was a love-cum-arrange marriage,
later in the course of time, appellant/wife is not interested to
live with the respondent/husband and both of them even
entered into memorandum of understanding and permanent
alimony was also paid to the appellant/wife and
respondent/husband gave complaint against Nagesh, as he was
threatening him to give Rs.10,00,000/- to appellant/wife. In
Para No.15 of the counter, it was stated that both of them are
not interested to lead marital life and there is no possibility of
reunion, and thus the trial Court considering all the facts in
detail rightly dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce and
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said Order.
12. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed by confirming the Order of the trial Court in
H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, dated 12.11.2024. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 28.05.2025
tri
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.22 of 2025
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
DATE: 28.05.2025
TRI
