Arepally Ramesh, Karimnagar Dist vs Arepally , Sircilla Swarupa, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6337 Tel

Telangana High Court

Arepally Ramesh, Karimnagar Dist vs Arepally , Sircilla Swarupa, ... on 7 November, 2025

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                                    and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

                FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.111 of 2015

   JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN)

Notice sent to the respondent was returned unserved with the

endorsement "refused." Refusal amounts to valid service. We have

noted the same in our docket proceedings dated 15.10.2025.

2. We have heard Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the

appellant.

3. We have perused the record.

4. The appellant-husband filed a petition vide O.P. No.492 of

2013 under Section 10(1)(1)(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act against

the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds

of cruelty and desertion. Their marriage was performed on

18.05.2005. It was an arranged marriage. The said marriage was

consummated. They were blessed with a male and a female child out

of their lawful wedlock.

5. According to the appellant, the respondent was very arrogant

and started ill-treating him on one pretext or the other. She disturbed

the career of the children and used to frequently go to her parents'

house. She often created galata at the appellant's house without any

reason. On 25.06.2008, she left the company of the appellant, taking

away all her belongings. The appellant and his family members

approached the respondent and requested her to rejoin his company,

but she refused to do so. The respondent was supported by her

brother-in-law in maintaining an indifferent attitude towards the

appellant. She maintained illicit relation with her brother-in-law.

Therefore, the appellant approached the elders, and a panchayat was

convened, wherein the elders advised the respondent to rejoin the

appellant. Even then, the respondent did not join his company and

expressed her refusal in the presence of the elders. Thus, according to

the appellant, the respondent subjected him to cruelty and deserted

him.

6. The respondent filed a counter denying the said allegations.

She also denied the allegation made by the appellant that she

developed illicit intimacy with her brother-in-law and that her

brother-in-law was moving closely with her in Karimnagar town.

7. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, the appellant

examined himself as PW-1, his schoolmate as PW-2, and a third

party as PW-3. He filed Ex.A1 - Marriage Certificate issued by

Grace Baptist Church, Huzurabad, and Ex.A2 - Photograph of the

appellant and the respondent with their children. To disprove the said

allegations of cruelty and desertion, the respondent examined herself

as RW-1 and her father as RW-2. She filed Ex.B1 - Certified copy

of the complaint in DVC No.23 of 2014. Upon consideration of the

said oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court, by the

impugned order dated 13.11.2014, dismissed the said O.P.

8. As discussed supra, the appellant filed the aforesaid O.P.

against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds

of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, the burden lies on him to plead

and prove the said cruelty and desertion by producing relevant

evidence. He made bald allegations that the respondent was arrogant

and used to move closely with her brother-in-law etc. However, he

failed to prove the same. The respondent specifically denied having

maintained any illicit contact with her brother-in-law.

9. In paragraph No.5 of the petition, the appellant specifically

alleged that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with her

brother-in-law, who is the husband of the respondent's sister, and that

they were regularly moving together in Karimnagar town. He further

alleged that the respondent was frequently visiting her parents' house

without his consent and knowledge. In fact, the appellant married her

with the hope of leading a happy marital life. Even then, he did not

file the aforesaid O.P. seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground

of adultery. He also did not make the respondent's brother-in-law a

party to the said O.P. The respondent denied the said allegations.

Even then, the appellant failed to prove the same by examining any

witnesses.

10. PW-2 and PW-3 deposed about the marital life of the

appellant and the respondent. However, they did not depose that the

respondent developed any illicit intimacy with her brother-in-law.

The burden lies on the appellant to prove the same. With regard to the

other allegations, he has not produced any evidence. He has also not

examined any of the elders who conducted the panchayat.

11. During cross-examination, the appellant (PW-1) admitted that

at one stage, when the relationship between him and the respondent

became strained, the matter was brought before the police, and he

gave an undertaking before the L.M.D. Colony Police Station on

26.05.2006 to the effect that he would take proper care of the

respondent and would not make any allegations against her conduct

and character. It is also not in dispute that the respondent filed an

application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.

No.23 of 2014.