Telangana High Court
Kasulabada Purnima vs Kasulabada Venugopal on 24 November, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.125 of 2014 ALONG WITH
I.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN)
We have heard Sri Sritharam, learned counsel representing
Sri M.V.B.S. Narasimha Anudeep, learned counsel for the Appellant -
wife. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent
- husband.
2. The Family Court Appeal is preferred by the appellant
challenging the order dated 16.06.2014 in F.C.O.P No.262 of 2010
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum- III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Warangal granting decree of divorce by dissolving
the marriage between the parties held on 28.05.2005.
3. The appellant is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband.
The Respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP No. 262 of 2010
under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
against the appellant - wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the
ground of cruelty and desertion contending as follows:
i. His marriage with the appellant herein was performed on
28.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs.
ii. It was an arranged marriage, and they were blessed with a female
child on 17.11.2006, namely, Siri Chandana.
iii. At the time of marriage, he was working in M/s. Bal Pharma
Limited. After few months of marriage, appellant started
demanding him to live separately from his parents and began to
harass him.
iv. She did not cooperate in maintaining conjugal relationship.
Consequently, the respondent put up separate residence in
Warangal and started living away from his aged parents from
October 2007.
v. Appellant used to restrict him from visiting his parents and
demanded to hand over his entire salary to her.
vi. During the said period, while they were living separately, she
made a false allegation that her husband had attempted to kill her
by leaking LPG Gas.
vii. On his transfer to Hubli, Karnataka, on promotion, he informed
her that he would require 4-5 months to complete his training, to
find out suitable accommodation and requested her to vacate the
rented house and stay with her parents in the meantime.
viii. When he met with an accident at Hubli and was bedridden,
despite being informed, she did not care to visit him.
ix. Due to her constant harassment, he was compelled to submit his
resignation in October 2008. Subsequently, she lodged a
complaint on 29.10.2008 against him and his family members.
x. On 15.11.2008, he was forced to give an undertaking stating that
if he secured employment, he would take her to the place of his
posting by 01.12.2008. However, as he could not secure any job
till the end of December 2008, he was advised to resume the
conjugal relationship, but the wife refused to join him.
xi. Appellant approached the DSP, Hanumakonda, on 18.01.2009.
Both parties were called, and the DSP admonished the wife and
her father, advising her to join the husband, to which she initially
agreed.
xii. The appellant made unreasonable demands for structural
modifications to the house and stated that unless these demands
were met, she would not join the company of the husband.
xiii. Owing to such conduct of the wife, the Respondent/Husband filed
F.C.O.P. No. 262 of 2010 seeking divorce on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion. The Appellant/Wife did not join the society
of the husband since 2009. On these grounds, he sought
dissolution of the marriage.
4. The appellant filed counter, denying the claim of the
respondent, contending as follows:-
i. She never subjected the husband to cruelty as alleged. At the time
of marriage, her parents presented an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in
cash, two shutters at Mangapet, and other household articles
towards dowry.
ii. She sought to live separately due to the distance from her
workplace and to avoid harassment from her in-laws, who
restricted her from taking care of her child. After the marriage, her
in-laws allegedly started harassing her mentally and physically,
demanding an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry.
iii. Her husband attempted to kill her by leaking LPG gas and on
10.02.2008, a panchayat was held in which the husband was
found fault. The husband was admonished and she was sent back
to the matrimonial home.
iv. He had promised to take her to Hubli within three months, but
upon his transfer, he failed to provide his address.
v. On 15.11.2008, he gave an undertaking that he would take care of
his wife and child by arranging a separate house within a week or
by 28.11.2008 but he failed to do so.
vi. On 18.01.2009, DSP called both parties and held counseling in
which he promised to take her back to the matrimonial home.
vii. As he never took care of her or their child and failed to provide
maintenance, there was no desertion on the part of the wife;
rather, due to the acts of her husband and his family members, she
was compelled to stay at her parents' house.
viii. She gave reply dated 12.12.2008 to the legal notice dated
28.11.2008 issued by the husband denying the said allegations.
5. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the said
OP filed by the husband.
6. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, husband examined
himself as PW-1, his mother as PW-2, his relative as PW-3 and his
maternal Uncle as PW-4 and marked Ex.A-1 - Marriage Photograph,
Ex. A-2 - Legal notice issued to the appellant/Wife dated 29.11.2008,
Ex.P3 - Rejoinder to the reply notice dated 02.02.2009, Ex.A-4 - Postal
receipt, Ex.A-5 - Postal Acknowledgement, Ex.A-6 - Reply notice
given by the Appellant/Wife. Opposing the said petition, the wife
examined herself as RW-1 and her relative as RW-2 and marked Ex.B-1
- Letter dated 15.11.2008 addressed to D.S.P. Hanamkonda by the
husband.
7. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, vide impugned order dated 16.06.2014, the learned Family
Court granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage held between
the appellant and respondent on 28.05.2005 holding as follows:-
i. The appellant - wife never issued any legal notice nor filed a
petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which shows that she
has no intention to resume marital life.
ii. Her evidence was inconsistent that she denied asking for separate
residence but admitted it elsewhere.
iii. The appellant - wife deserted the respondent - husband in the
year 2008 without any justifiable reason.
iv. The matrimonial disputes and the failure of mediation shows that
the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down,
leaving no scope for reunion.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the wife preferred the
present appeal to set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2014 in
F.C.O.P No.262 of 2010 passed by the learned Family Court.
9. As discussed supra, the marriage of the husband with the wife
was performed on 28.05.2005. They are blessed with one daughter aged
19 years at present. The husband was working at M/s Bal Pharma
Limited, Warangal, at the time of marriage. He filed the aforesaid
petition vide F.C.O.P. No.262 of 2010 against the wife seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Therefore, the burden lies on him to plead and prove the said cruelty and
desertion. To establish the same, he narrated the above facts, more
particularly the attitude of the wife and her demand to live separately. To
prove the same, he examined himself as PW-1, his mother as PW-2, and
his relative as PW-3 and his maternal Uncle as PW-4.
10. There is also no dispute that the wife lodged a complaint
against the husband before the Police Station, which was closed by the
Police on the ground that Husband has given an undertaking to take care
of his wife.
11. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 reveals that the
appellant - wife, with the support of her father, insisted on living
separately and did not cooperate in leading a conjugal life. There is
serious allegation against her that she abused her husband in the
presence of his parents and relatives and demanded him to hand over his
entire salary to her. P W. 2 to 4 deposed in the said lines apart from
husband himself as P.W.1. Even then, nothing was elicited during cross
examination.
12. There is also a serious allegation against her that she abused
her husband in filthy language, leading to an abrupt end of the
Meeting/Panchayat held on 10.02.2008 at Amrutha Gardens,
Hanamakonda. Thus according to PW.1, he mentally disturbed due to
the said incident and attempted to commit suicide by jumping into
Bhadrakali Tank but was rescued by his friends. The depositions of P.W
1 to 4 reveal the said fact. Even then, nothing was elicited from them
during Cross-examination.
13. It is apt to note that PW.2, Mother of Husband deposed that
she has no objection if both parties live together. Even then, Parties did
not make any effort to join and stay together to lead happy matrimonial
life.
14. It is also apt to note that PWs.3 and 4, Maternal Uncles of
Husband confirmed the strained relations between the couple but denied
the allegations of any attempt to harm the wife or her child.
15. From the cross-examination of RW.1 (wife), it is evident that
she admitted receipt of gold bangles for the child and acknowledged
living separately since 2008 without filing any petition for restitution or
notice to resume cohabitation. Her willingness to rejoin was conditional
upon the husband living away from his parents, which cannot be treated
as bona fide. She failed to prove any specific act of cruelty or dowry
demand and produced no documentary evidence. Except for one
complaint made, which was taken back upon undertaking, no grievance
was raised during cohabitation, and her persistent insistence on
separation caused mental cruelty.
16. However, PW.1 specifically deposed that after receiving the
reply notice from the wife expressing willingness to join him, the
husband made no sincere attempt to restore cohabitation or to arrange a
separate residence as undertaken before the mediators. He did not make
any effort to take the custody of the minor child or seeking visitation
rights. This omission reflects his lack of bona fide intention to resume
the marital relationship.
17. Perusal of the record with regard to alleged Deepavali incident
in October 2008, wherein the wife claims to have been assaulted by the
husband's maternal uncles, Rajender and Venkata Ramana (P.W.4),
Appellant - wife in her chief examination deposed that upon invitation
by Rajender, she visited his house along with her child and two minor
relatives. During such visit, she was beaten and threatened with a
revolver. But however, she failed to elicit the said facts from P.W.4 or
P.W.1. In proof of the same, she has examined her cousin as R.W.2 who
specifically deposed about the said incident. However, during cross-
examination, nothing was elicited. But during the cross-examination,
R.W-2 categorically admitted that she was 14 years in 2008, during the
said alleged incident. It is also apt to note that appellant - Wife did not
lodge any complaint against the said Venkatramana and Rajender on the
said incident. However, no documentary proof of the alleged assault or
medical treatment was produced before the Court.
18. On the contrary, PW-4, who was one of the persons that
threatened her, specifically denied the said incident and stated that
respondent - husband was at Hubli on the date of the alleged incident. In
the absence of credible and corroborative evidence, the allegation of
physical assault during the Deepavali festival in 2008 remains
unsubstantiated.
19. It is also apt to note that appellant wife has lodged a complaint
against her husband before Family Counselling Centre/DSP, who in turn
called respondent - Husband and conducted counselling wherein
Respondent - Husband submitted Ex. B.1 Letter dated 15.11.2008 to
DSP, Family Counselling Centre Hanumakonda, stating that he was
jobless as on the said date, he will search for a job within 15 days i.e by
1st December and then take his wife back. Otherwise, he will take his
wife to the place of his convenience and lead marital life. He will also
inform his address and take his wife from the Counselling Centre.
20. The aforesaid discussion would reveal that there is strained
relations between appellant -wife and respondent - husband. On the
complaint lodged by her, DSP Hanamakonda, called her husband to
counseling wherein he has submitted Ex. B.1 letter. There is also a
specific allegation that she has demanded her husband to set up separate
family and restricted respondent and his parent's movements into their
house and also visitation rights of their child. Respondent - Husband
attempted to commit suicide due to the incident during panchayat held
on 10.02.2008. There is also an allegation that appellant - wife attempted
to commit suicide due to leakage of LPG gas. They are also residing
separately from 2008 onwards. Despite Ex. B-1 undertaking given by
Respondent - Husband, there is no change in their attitude and they
remained staying separately.
21. It is also apt to note that neither appellant - wife nor
Respondent -Husband filed an application seeking Restitution of
Conjugal Rights. Respondent - Husband did not file any application
seeking custody of his child or visitation Rights.
22. It is also not in dispute that appellant - wife and her daughter
filed an application under Section 125 CrPC. vide M.C No. 61 of 2014
seeking maintenance. Learned Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs.
4,000/- per month to the Wife and 5,000/- per month to the daughter.
Perusal of record would reveal that Respondent - Husband has filed Crl.
R.C No. 1874 of 2016 challenging the said order and as per the orders
granted by this Court, the husband has deposited an amount of One Lakh
on 06.11.2016. Thereafter, he failed to pay the said amount. Thus, there
is an allegation against Respondent - Husband that he is not paying the
said maintenance amount.
23. It is also apt to note that during pendency of the present
appeal, Appellant - Wife has filed I.A.No. 1 of 2025 seeking
susbsitituion of service on the respondent - husband. Vide order dated,
17.02.2025, this Court permitted the appellant to publish notice in
Andhra Jyothi, Telugu Daily Newspaper and the Times of India, English
Daily Newspaper. Accordingly, she has published the said notices and
filed copies of the same.
24. She has also filed I.A.No. 5 of 2025 stating that Respondent is
working as an Industrial Manager at Smartcoat India Private Limited,
located in Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad. Therefore, this Court granted
permission to the appellant to serve notice on the Respondent at the said
address. According to her, notice sent to the Respondent at the said
address is returned unserved with an endorsement "Addressee Left.
Returned to Sender". Accordingly the said application was disposed of.
25. She has also filed I.A.No. 4 of 2025 seeking a direction to
Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10,26,000/- towards arrears of
maintenance awarded in the aforesaid M.C. Vide order dated
04.11.2025, this court dismissed the said application holding that she has
to file an application under section 125(3) of CrPC and thus, there is a
delay of 11 years.
26. She has also filed I.A.No. 3 of 2025 in the present appeal
seeking a direction to Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-
towards expenses of her daughter's marriage. Likewise, she has filed
I.A.No. 2 of 2025 seeking a direction to Respondent to pay an amount of
Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance of her daughter. In the
light of the aforesaid discussion, I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025 are dismissed.
27. As discussed supra the Respondent filed the aforesaid O.P
against appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion.
28. The appellant relied on the judgment of Apex Court in
Kollam Chndrasekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha 1 wherein it was held
that marriage is a sacred institution and that dissolution should not be
granted casually, when the husband abandoned the wife during her
illness or without affording a chance for reconciliation. She also relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Geddam Jhansi v. State of
Telangana2 to argue that vague or generalized allegations without
specific evidence cannot constitute cruelty. To seek permanent alimony,
she also relied on the judgments of the High Court including
Vijayashree v. Dr. Nishant Arvind Kale 3, Umarani v. D.
Vivekannandan 4 and Surajmal Ramachandra Khati v. Rukmani 5 to
submit that under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance or
(2014) 1 SCC 225)
(2025 SCC OnLine SC 263)
(2021 SCC OnLine Bom 29)
(2000 SCC OnLine Mad 50),
(1999 SCC OnLine MP 87),
alimony may be granted even on an oral request or without a separate
written application, considering the object of the Act.
29. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound;
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is
almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to
person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational,
family and cultural background, financial position, social status,
customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value
system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 6.
30. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different
challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human
relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties.
It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of cruelty or
blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the
general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation
between the two is relevant factors which a Court must take into
(2007) 4 SCC 511
consideration as observed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Raman v. Smt.
Kavita 7
31. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely
affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of
life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions
and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each
case has to be decided on its own merits as held by the Apex Court in
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 8
32. The appellant and the respondent were at loggerheads right
from the inception of their marriage. The marriage never took off.
Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage for the last twelve years,
the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The marriage is
virtually shattered and has become a dead wood. The allegations and
counter allegations levelled against each other establish that there is no
further chance of a rapprochement. The appellant has pleaded and
2023 AIR (SC 2144
(2006) 4 SCC 558
proved specific instances of cruelty meted out on him by the respondent
as held by the Apex Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna.9
33. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the
point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties
cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting
their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to
allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and
affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce as
held by the Apex Court in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati
Tripathy 10
34. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct
of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the
entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the
same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to cruelty or not.
35. In Naveen Kohli, (supra) the Apex Court held as follows:
"72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a
sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it
can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt,
should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found
MANU/KE/1505/2021
(2005) 7 SCC 353
that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The
consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has
long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the
parties."
73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken
marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are
presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of
marriage into disrepute.
74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the
marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law
not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious
to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be surmised 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 do not serve the sanctity of
marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions
of the parties.
75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as
possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where
a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in
the recognition of that fact.
76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to
resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied
for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist."
36. As discussed above, the parties are staying separately from
2008 onwards i.e., since last 17 years. The daughter is 19 years now. It
is not in dispute that the appellant - wife brought up her daughter. The
respondent - husband never sought for custody of his daughter or the
visitation rights.
37. Despite granting ample opportunity, there is no representation
on behalf of the husband.
38. It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court can
dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. However, it can be considered as an aspect along with other
aspects while deciding the present Appeal. In the present case, the
parties are staying separately since last 17 years. There is no possibility
of their re-union. During the period of said separation only, the
respondent- husband filed the aforesaid FCOP. On consideration of the
said evidence, the Family Court allowed the said FCOP filed by the
respondent - husband vide impugned order dated 16.06.2014 dissolving
the marriage between the appellant and the respondent dated 25.02.2007
39. As discussed supra, appellant brought up her daughter till date
and she is 19 years at present. According to appellant - Wife,
Respondent is not paying maintenance amount awarded by the
Magistrate except deposit of the aforesaid amount of One Lakh in
compliance with order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Crl.R.C. It is
also specific contention of the appellant - Wife that Respondent is
presently working as Institutional Manager at Smartcoat India Pvt. Ltd.
Hyderabad. He was aged about 35 years as on the date of filing of
F.C.O.P. No.262 of 2010, and he is 50 years old now. As on the date of
filing of OP, she was 30 years and now she is 45 years old. Admittedly,
the child is residing with the wife and she alone has brought her up and
she is aged 19 years at present. The wife has to perform the marriage of
their daughter. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
appellant - wife and her daughter are entitled for an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony
and maintenance of her child and the respondent - husband is liable to
pay the same.
40. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 16.06.2014 in FCOP No.262 of 2010 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the
appellant with the respondent is confirmed, on the condition that
Respondent - Husband paying an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony to the wife and
maintenance of their daughter. He shall pay the said amount within 3
months from today. The said amount is towards full and final settlement
of all the claims of the appellant - wife and her daughter including
permanent alimony and arrears of maintenance awarded by the learned
Magistrate in M.C. No. 61 of 2014 and Cr.R.C No. 1874 of 2011. They
shall not make any further claim in any form against Respondent -
Husband. It is also made clear that if Respondent - Husband failed to
pay the said amount within the aforesaid period of three (3) months from
today, liberty is granted to appellant - wife and her daughter to take steps
against her husband in accordance with law.
41. In view of granting permanent alimony which includes the
maintenance to the daughter of the appellant, both the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of
2025 are dismissed.
42. With the aforesaid directions, the Family Court Appeal is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
__________________________________________
JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Date: 24 .11.2025.
Vvr.
