Telangana High Court
Thagulla Sandhya vs Thagulla Yadagiri on 21 November, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
F.C.A.Nos.35 and 201 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)
Despite service of notice, none appeared for the
respondent/husband.
2. Heard Sri Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha, learned counsel for the
appellant. We have perused the record.
3. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was
performed on 23.05.2003 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It
is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with two children
i.e., son on 16.02.2005 and daughter on 31.12.2006 out of their
lawful wedlock.
4. According to the respondent/husband, appellant
maintained illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent in FCA
No.201 of 2025 i.e., Mamidi Gattu and eloped with him. Thus,
she has subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. On the said
ground, he has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib)
of Hindu Marriage Act vide O.P.No.31 of 2013 seeking
dissolution of marriage. The appellant/wife has filed
O.P.No.19 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
5. Vide order dated 09.08.2014, learned Judge, Family
Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda
allowed O.P.No.31 of 2013 filed by the respondent/husband
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and
desertion. Challenging the said order, F.C.A.No.201 of 2015 is
filed by the appellant/wife.
6. Likewise, learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, dismissed O.P.No.19
of 2013 filed by the appellant/wife seeking restitution of
conjugal rights. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, wife
preferred F.C.A No.35 of 2015.
7. As discussed supra, according to the
respondent/husband, appellant/wife maintained illicit
relationship with the 2nd respondent and deserted him. She had
also lodged a complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 against him
for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. She has also filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance
vide M.C.No.1 of 2013. Therefore, according to the 1st
respondent/husband, appellant subjected him to cruelty and
deserted him.
8. Respondent/wife filed counter opposing the said
application i.e., in O.P.No.31 of 2013 contending that the
respondent/husband filed aforesaid application only to get rid
of her. He has demanded additional dowry. He has harassed
her and her children. Her parents paid an amount of
Rs.50,000/- in the month of February, 2012. Therefore, she has
filed complaint in Crime No.104 of 2012 with the Women
Police Station, Nalgonda. He failed to maintain her and her
children. Therefore, she has filed an application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. The same does not amount to cruelty. In fact, he
has harassed her mentally and physically.
9. To prove the said cruelty and desertion,
respondent/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and his
brother as P.W.2. He has filed Ex.P1/Lagna Koti date
22.05.2003, Ex.P2, copy of ration card and Ex.P3, photo along
with CD. To disprove the said cruelty and desertion, appellant
examined herself as R.W.1 and a panchayat elder as R.W.2.
Ex.MO1, key chain was also exhibited.
10. As discussed supra, though the 1st respondent/husband
alleged cruelty and desertion against the appellant on the
ground that she maintained illicit relationship with the 2nd
respondent, he failed to prove the same. He has not examined
any witness to prove the same. He has examined his brother as
P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 is not useful to prove the said
alleged illicit intimacy of the appellant with the 2nd respondent.
11. It is also apt to note that lodging complaint against
husband by the wife for the offences under Section 498-A of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not a
cruel act. It is the specific allegation of the appellant/wife that
the 1st respondent/husband harassed her both physically and
mentally. Panchayat was held. P.W.2 is the panchayat elder.
Thus, he has harassed her both physically and mentally.
12. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C against 1st
respondent/husband vide M.C.No.1 of 2013 seeking
maintenance. Filing an application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C is not a cruel act. They have filed the said application
seeking maintenance for their survival.
13. As discussed supra, 1st respondent/husband has made
serious allegations against the appellant/wife that she has
maintained illicit relation with the 2nd respondent and eloped
with him. The 1st respondent/husband has to plead and prove
the same. Though, he has pleaded, he failed to prove the same
by producing relevant evidence.
14. P.W.2/brother of 1st respondent/husband deposed that
appellant/wife eloped with 2nd respondent in the month of
October, 2010 by taking an amount of Rs.30,000/- and since
then she is living with him. He has not examined any witness
nor filed any document in proof of the same. Though he has
alleged that appellant has obtained an amount of Rs.10,000/-
loan by mortgaging her Mangalsuthram, he has not filed any
document in proof of the same and not examined any witness.
Even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, they have caught the
appellant/wife and 2nd respondent red-handed while watching
'Srimanarayana' film. The same was also noticed by the
Bathula Mallaiah, Alisetti Lingaiah and other caste elders.
They have not examined any of them. Placing reliance on
Ex.P3, they cannot allege wife maintaining illicit relationship
with the 2nd respondent. As discussed supra, evidence of
P.W.2, brother of 1st respondent/husband is not useful to prove
the same.
15. P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied that
appellant/wife and 2nd respondent were at cinema hall and he
came to know about their presence and caught hold of both of
them and they beat him.
16. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide
impugned order dated 09.08.2014, learned Judge, Family
Court, held that the 1st respondent/husband failed to prove the
said alleged illegal intimacy alleged to have maintained by the
appellant with the 2nd respondent. There is no challenge to the
said finding by 1st respondent/husband.
17. However, having held so, learned Judge, Family Court
dissolved the marriage of the appellant with the 1st respondent
holding that she lived separately since last two years. There is
no chance of the appellant coming back and staying with the
1st respondent.
18. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground to
grant decree of divorce by the Family Court. Even on the said
ground, this Court cannot grant divorce. Without considering
the said aspects, without appreciating evidence, more
particularly, the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and
2, learned Family Court held that the appellant/wife deserted
the 1st respondent/husband in the year 2012. The said finding
of the learned Family Court is contrary to the evidence both
oral and documentary. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
19. It is opt to note that MO1 i.e., key chain is exhibited in
O.P.No.31 of 2013. It is opt to note that appellant/wife, with
regard to the key chain, denied that 2nd respondent is her
classmate and that she maintained illicit relation with 2nd
respondent. She has also denied a suggestions that the 2nd
respondent is maintaining her and her children, she was caught
with 2nd respondent along with her children in a cinema theater
and that she is running a hotel at that particular point of time.
Even then, 1st respondent/husband did not examine any
witness to prove the same.
20. As discussed supra, both the appellant and the 1st
respondent were blessed with two children. They are aged 20
years and 19 years, respectively, at present. Admittedly,
appellant/wife brought up the said children. It is the duty of the
1st respondent/husband to pay maintenance to both of them and
to his wife. Therefore, they have filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C vide M.C.No.1 of 2013. It is not a cruel
act.
21. As discussed supra, on the mere allegations and
insinuation made by the 1st respondent/husband, neither the
Family Court nor this Court can dissolve the marriage of the
parties. Both the grounds on which the 1st respondent/husband
sought decree of divorce i.e., cruelty and desertion are serious
in nature. The 1st respondent/husband has to plead and prove
the same by producing relevant evidence. As discussed supra,
though the 1st respondent/husband made serious allegations
against the appellant/wife that she maintained illicit
relationship with the 2nd respondent, he has not proved the
same. Relying on MO1-key chain, 1st respondent/husband
cannot contend that the appellant maintained illicit relation
with 2nd respondent.
22. In the light of the said discussion, order dated
09.08.2014 in O.P.No.31 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda, is set aside and O.P.No.31 of 2013 is dismissed.
Accordingly, FCA No.201 of 2015 is allowed.
23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, order dated
09.08.2014 in O.P.No.19 of 2013 passed by the Judge, Family
Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda,
is set aside and O.P.No.19 of 2013 is allowed. The 1st
respondent/husband is directed to join the company of the
appellant within three (3) months from today, failing which,
liberty is granted to the appellant/wife to take steps in
accordance with law.
24. Accordingly, both Appeals are allowed. Miscellaneous
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
_________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
21st November, 2025.
KVS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
F.C.A. Nos.35 and 201 of 2015
21st November, 2025.
KVS
