Telangana High Court
B. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy vs Smt. Lakshmi Jaya Pradha Devi , Jaya ... on 26 November, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
F.C.A.No.365 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
- (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage
took place on 26.01.1991. They were also blessed with two male
children. On account of the differences that have arisen between them,
several proceedings ensued. The appellant filed O.P.No.528 of 2008
in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against the
respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for
short 'the Act'). By citing various reasons, which according to him
constituted cruelty, the appellant prayed for a decree of divorce. The
respondent entered appearance and filed counter. She opposed the
O.P by denying the allegations. Through the order dated 21.11.2012
the trial Court granted a decree for judicial separation. The appellant
feels aggrieved by the same and has filed the present appeal.
Smt S. Vani, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that various acts and
omissions particularly, institution of innumerable cases against the
appellant and his family members by the respondent by itself
constitutes an act of cruelty, but still the relief of divorce was not
granted. She submits that the respondent has gone to the extent of
alleging illicit intimacy between the appellant and his neighbours and
colleagues and though there is not even a ray of hope for the parties to
live together, the trial Court made a vain attempt in passing the decree
for judicial separation. The learned counsel further submits that the
evidence on record discloses that the respondent made the life of the
appellant miserable not only by spreading ugly canard but also
approaching the offices wherever the appellant work. She further
contends that there was not even an attempt by the respondent to join
the appellant ever since the decree was passed and that itself is a
sufficient ground to pass a decree for divorce.
The respondent is served with notice, but there is no
representation for her.
Incidentally, it needs to be observed that the respondent filed an
independent appeal being F.C.A.No.411 of 2012 feeling aggrieved by
the same decree and the appeal was dismissed for default today
through a separate order.
The appellant made a detailed reference to the various acts and
omissions on the part of the respondent ever since the marriage. The
respondent however denied the same. The Trial Court framed only
one point for consideration, namely, whether the petitioner (appellant)
is entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty?
To prove his case, the appellant deposed as P.W.1 and he
examined P.W.2 an office colleague. He also filed Exs.P.1 to P.11,
which are certified copies of the complaints submitted by the
respondent and the judgments in certain cases through which the
appellant was acquitted.
The respondent deposed as R.W.1, but she did not file any
documentary evidence.
The cruelty is recognized as one of the grounds under the Act
for granting a decree of divorce. The cruelty contemplated under
Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Act need not be the one, which resulted in any
bodily or manifested injuries. If one of the spouses is subjected to
mental agony and misery to such an extent that it is no longer possible
for her or him to continue with the marriage, it amounts to cruelty. In the
recent past, the Supreme Court held that institution of numerous
proceedings or filing of vexatious complaints would by itself constitute
an act of cruelty.
The evidence on record in the instant case discloses that the
respondent had subjected the appellant to cruelty in different ways.
She suspected the character of the appellant and went to the extent of
attributing infidelity with the office colleagues. P.W.2, who is a
colleague of the appellant in the office, deposed that the respondent
has come to their office and she used filthy language not only against
the appellant but also against the office colleagues. It was stated that
the respondent used to exhibit anxiety to know the movements and
whereabouts of the appellant suspecting his character even he went on
official duties. It is also on record that the allegations of this nature
were made against the appellant
vis-à-vis the neighbourhood. So much so, they had to file a complaint
against the respondent. The acts of cruelty on the part of the
respondent are galore in the personal life between herself and the
respondent.
Apart from the proved facts of cruelty referred to above, the trial
Court recorded a finding to the effect that the respondent filed quite a
large number of complaints, most of them are frivolous and that itself
constituted an act of cruelty. Reference is made to various precedents
of the Supreme Court.
The documentary evidence comprises of about half a dozen
complaints submitted by the respondent against the appellant. It is
brought to the notice of this Court that in most of the cases the
appellant was acquitted. The act of the respondent in filing so many
complaints not only against the appellant but also his family members
by itself would constitute an act of cruelty. It is also brought to the notice
of this Court that the respondent was so unkind and cruel to him that
she has driven him away from the house, which belongs to him.
Whatever may have been the justification for the trial Court in granting
a decree for judicial separation, the subsequent events are absence of
them. Creating any hope for reconciliation would make it clear that
there is no point in continuing the matrimonial relations in such a
condition.
We accordingly allow the appeal and the decree passed by the
trial Court shall stand modified to the one of dissolution of marriage.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision shall stand
disposed of.
___________________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
___________________________
S.V. BHATT , J
Date: 04.06.2013
va
