Telangana High Court
Sri. Anabathula Rajashekar vs Smt. Vangari Sushma on 3 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
I.A.No.1/2025
In/and
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.115 of 2024
Between:
Sri Anabathula Rajashekar, S/o.Anabathula Ganesh
Appellant
VERSUS
Smt.Vangari Sushma, W/o.Anabathula Rajashekar
Respondent
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 03.09.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
___________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
2
* THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
+ I.A.No.1/2025
In/and
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.115 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar))
%Dated 03.09.2025
# Between:
Sri Anabathula Rajashekar, S/o.Anabathula Ganesh
Appellant
VERSUS
Smt.Vangari Sushma, W/o.Anabathula Rajashekar
Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri N.Raghavendra Goud
^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Rakesh Bhukya
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
In/and
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.115 of 2024
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)
We have heard Sri N.Raghavendra Goud, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Bhukya, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. The present Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated
26-03-2024 passed by the Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XI
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Trial
Court') in O.P.No.1716 of 2019 filed by the respondent (wife) under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act')
seeking a prayer to grant decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with
the appellant (husband), which is performed on 23-08-2018.
3. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26-03-2024 allowed the OP
holding that both parties are equally responsible to bring the marriage to an
end, though physically and medically fit to lead conjugal life. There are
several differences of opinions, disparities and incompatibility between the
parties. Therefore, the learned Trial Court held that the marriage became a
fiction and their marriage is dried and died for all purposes.
4. This Court vide interim orders dated 25-04-2024 passed in I.A.No.1
of 2024 in F.C.A.No.115 of 2024, stayed the effect and operation of the
impugned order.
5. I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed by the respondent seeking vacation of the
said interim orders.
6. It is to be noted that since the allegations made by the parties against
each other are extremely private in nature including that of potency related
issues, this Court considered appropriate to conduct the in-camera
proceedings. Accordingly, vide docket orders dated 19-08-2025, at request
of learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as respondent, we have
posted the matter to 26-08-2025 at 3:45 p.m. for conducting in-camera
proceedings. This Court interacted with the appellant (husband) and
respondent (wife) on 26-08-2025 and again on 01-09-2025 individually
and jointly. During interactions, we have considered the contentions of
both parties extensively.
7. Sri N.Raghavendra Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant contended that the appellant was a Software Engineer
working in a private firm. He contends that prior to the marriage, when an
engagement ceremony was performed on 05-07-2018, during talks the
respondent expressed her reluctance to have children and concerns on her
physical fitness, body shape and overall appearance due to motherhood
while the appellant respected her decisions and career ambitions,
emphasizing the importance of maintaining balanced approach towards
marital life.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that subsequent
to the marriage dated 23-08-2018, the respondent joined the appellant at
his house and informed the appellant that she was suffering from dengue
fever from the last 3-4 days and therefore unwell. The said ailment
continued for about 2 weeks, during which period, the reception also took
place. After a week, when first night was arranged on 31-08-2018 at the
house of the appellant, the respondent was sent with a glass of milk into
the room where the ceremony was arranged. The respondent expressed her
non-recovery from dengue fever, and hence, the appellant did not insist the
respondent to consummate in view of her illness. In the initial two months,
the respondent displayed a notable reluctance to physical contact,
attributing it to shyness or the newness of their relationship owing it to the
transition from parental home to marital home. The appellant retained
hope that the respondent would eventually adjust and treated her with
much love and affection.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that driven by
love, affection and care, the appellant had regularly taken the responsibility
of dropping off and pick up the respondent from her office, and upon
learning of the respondent's participation in chess tournament in Mumbai,
he expressed his sincere desire to accompany her to offer unwavering
support and encouragement throughout the competition, whereas the
appellant was insulted by the respondent before her colleagues in Mumbai.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
appellant planned for a trip to Shillong, Meghalaya for 5 days, during
which time, both of them thoroughly enjoyed. As the time elapsed, the
respondent consistently avoided consummation, ultimately leading to filing
of the OP before the learned Trial Court after a period of 1 year from the
marriage, to cover up her faults alleging impotency and cruelty.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
respondent's doubts regarding appellant's potency, despite undergoing a
medical checkup for the male potency from a qualified Urologist with a
certificate issuing his potency, had strained their marriage. The
respondent's accusation of impotency was disproved by the medical
reports confirming the husband's physical fitness.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
respondent deliberately avoided consummation of marriage for over an
year and left the matrimonial home after one-year mark, suggesting pre-
planned strategy to file for divorce and potentially false cases.
13. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Bhukya, learned counsel for the
respondent (wife) contended that the parents of the respondent paid an
amount of Rs.7,32,000/- towards dowry. The appellant also demanded the
respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- p.m. from her salary. However, after
discussions, the appellant and his family members agreed for receiving
Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the respondent. The respondent paid an amount of
Rs.15,000/- p.m. starting from 01-09-2018 continuously for about more
than a year till she was sent out from the house.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that despite the
respondent's insistence, the appellant had not consummated their marriage,
never behaved like a potential husband both mentally and physically. The
appellant also used to physically harass the respondent by hitting her,
pulling her hair and pouring hot oil on her hands and later apolizing for the
behavour.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the
suspicious nature of the appellant lead her to doubt him at every instance
apart from usage of abusive language.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that within a
week of marriage, the appellant demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the
respondent as well as her parents, which caused them utter shock.
Thereafter the appellant kept demanding money on many such occasions
repeatedly. The respondent later came to know that the appellant is used to
consume alcohol and also drugs.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent
proposed to go to Shillong, Meghalaya etc. where the estimated
expenditure was Rs.50,000/-, for which the appellant demanded her to pay
Rs.30,000/-, and even at the said places, the appellant used to consume
alcohol and used to sleep claiming tiredness. Subsequently, the respondent
left for her parental home. The appellant again demanded for Rs.50,000-
60,000/- when the respondent blocked his number. Later the respondent
(wife) filed for mutual divorce instead of going through the rigid litigation
process, which was rejected by the appellant.
18. We have perused the record thoroughly.
19. The points that fall for determination by the learned Trial Court are :
"1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce by
way of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of
Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for?
2) To what relief ?"
20. Before the learned Trial Court, on behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1
and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of the
appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. Through Court,
C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked.
21. During cross-examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that she
completed her B.Tech., in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from
G.Narayanamma Institute of College in the year 2015 and working as an
employee in Airport Authority of India. Her father retired from ECIL as
Technical Manager in the month of March, 2017. The appellant is working
as Software Engineer by the date of marriage. During cross-examination,
P.W.1 deposed that she does not want to give her present address due to
fear that the appellant will attack her and her family. She further deposed
that she did not lodge any police complaint from 25-08-2019 till the date of
her giving evidence for not having marital relationship after the marriage
from 23-08-2018 till 25-08-2019 and did not inform either to Bharat
Matrimony People or one Mallesham, who settled the marriage about non-
consummation of her marriage.
22. However, she further revealed that she is not ready to rejoin the
matrimonial life with the appellant even if he forgets the entire past and
forgives her for all her acts and offers her to take back into his matrimonial
life. She further deposed that she has not taken any medical treatment
when the appellant attacked her with apple cutting knife, when her parents
came to take her for celebrations of Vinayakachavithi festival.
23. On perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the respondent
Exs.A-1 to A-12 as well as Ex.A-9 reply notice dated 03-11-2019 issued
by appellant through his counsel, wherein it was mentioned as "my client
not having the physical satisfaction with his wife but with a lot of patience
he has waited because he loves his wife unconditionally she avoided sex
for 3 months with all wrong assumptions she started to ask him to consult a
doctor by saying he is not potent, after she left home on 25th August 2019".
Ex.A-9 further refers that "my client has requested her to take him to the
hospital and to clarify if she has doubts on him but she rejected that
proposal in one ground or the other". However, all the contentions were
denied by the respondent. The main ground urged by the respondent for
obtaining divorce from the appellant is that he failed to perform sexual
intercourse with her in order to consummate the marriage apart from
subjecting to cruelty.
24. During cross-examination of P.W.2, who is the father of appellant,
stated that the appellant as well as respondent have travelled to various
places across the country, and he came to know on 19-08-2019 that his
daughter (P.W.1) is not happy in marital life and he is not ready to send his
daughter for medical checkup and counseling. He is not residing in the
address shown in the chief-affidavit due to life threat to him and his
daughter.
25. Coming to the examination of R.W.1, the appellant herein, who
deposed that during nuptial ceremony night when he asked the respondent
to sleep with him, there was no cooperation from the respondent. A
perusal of the examination of R.W.1 reveals that there were about 50 such
incidents which were not agreed by the respondent. The learned Trial
Court held that for the sake of denial only, R.W.1 is denying for divorce
and the same is also nothing but amounts to cruelty.
26. The evidence of C.W.1, who is one of the Member of Medical
Board and Doctor deposed that he is an Urologist and working in Gandhi
Hospital from 2007, and that the appellant was examined by the
Department of Urology, Physician, Surgeon, Endocrinologist, Urologist,
Forensic Medicine and advised routine investigations i.e. CVE, CBP, ESR,
B.L.Sugar, X-Ray Chest, PA-View, Sr.Electrolyte, Sr.Creatine, ECG and
Ultra Sound Abdomen. C.W.1 also performed one injection test on
08-09-2023 and pipe test on the appellant and also examined as to whether
his secondary sexual character are well developed. The medical report was
marked as Ex.X-1, which specifies that the appellant has no problem.
However, Ex.B-1 was marked subject to objection by the respondent.
27. With respect to evidence of C.W.2, who deposed that she is a
Gynecologist in Gandhi Hospital, that she along with other Medical Board
members examined and investigated the respondent and evaluated by
Physical Surgeon, Obstetric and Genealogy and other routine investigation.
Ex.X-2 Medical Report was marked stating that the respondent is
medically fit for leading marital life.
28. Learned Trial Court held that the evidence of C.Ws.1 and 2 coupled
with Exs.B-1, X-1 and X-2 discloses that both parties are physically and
medically fit to lead marital life. However, the learned Trial Court held
that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the contents of Exs.A-1 to
A12 and the admission in the evidence of R.W.1 clearly and clinchingly
establishes that the acts of the appellant caused severe mental agony to the
respondent.
29. Learned Trial Court further held that the refusal of the appellant for
mutual consent decree suggested by the respondent/wife also amounts to
cruelty. Moreover, the appellant's inaction to issue any legal notice for
restitution of conjugal life or to file a counter-claim for restitution
establishes that only for the sake of denial, the appellant is denying for
divorce is also amounts to cruelty.
30. Learned Trial Court also held that the parties are living separately
from 2019 and there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and
marriage has irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the Trial Court
concluded that both parties i.e. wife and husband are equally responsible to
bring the marriage to an end and the record further disclosed that though
both are physically and medically fit to lead conjugal life, they did not triy
to resolve the issues and there are several differences of opinions,
disparities, incompatibility between them, and that the acts and conduct of
the appellant caused severe mental agony to the respondent therefore held
that the marriage became a fiction and their marriage is dried and died for
all purposes.
31. We have given our earnest attention to the various contentions raised
by the parties vehemently before this Court.
32. The marriage especially under the ancient Hindu tradition
emphasizes it's indissoluble nature which is a sacred sacrament, a holy
union between a man and woman intended to lead the life by supporting
each other in joy and adversity. It is regarded as a holy sanskar,
symbolizing the eternal bond of companionship, duty and mutual respect
between husband and wife. The institution of marriage is considered to be
the very foundation of family life and social stability, wherein not only the
spouses but also families and future generations are bound together in
dharma.
33. It is not a contract which can be dissolved under the terms of
contract, but a solemn union demanding mutual trust, respect and sacrifice
for life. The sanctity of this institution rests upon the co-operation of the
spouses. For it is only though harmony, understanding and companionship
that the true purpose of marriage can be fulfilled. Thereby, justifying
judicial intervention to formally dissolve what has already ceased to exist
in substance, notwithstanding the absence specific statutory provision for
irretrievable breakdown as ground for granting divorce.
34. Family Courts are enjoined to function with a humane approach,
guided by the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence rather than rigid
adversarial practice. So that procedural formalities do not eclipse the
paramount judicial duty of upholding human dignity and mitigating the
pain and distress that inevitably accompany disputes touching upon the
sanctity of family life.
35. Upon considering the present facts and circumstances and also after
conducting in-camera proceedings, this Court feels that unlike the
procedural laws and penal laws which are enacted by the legislation, the
Family Law being a welfare legislation, the same cannot be executed
forcibly. It is necessary to keep in mind about the emotions of the
respective parties to a matrimonial dispute before passing an order of
decree. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to interact with the
parties jointly and separately on two occasions by way of in-camera
proceedings.
36. During the in-camera proceedings conducted, the respondent/wife
categorically made it clear that there is absolutely no possibility of any
compromise or settlement between the parties and that she is wholly averse
to any kind of marital reconciliation with the appellant/husband. The only
reason given by the appellant that he has a 'fantasy' about the concept of
marriage and desire to reunite with his wife on account of certain 'happy
memories' as per the evidence as well as during interactions, this
contention cannot be believed.
37. The allegations made by the respondent/wife against the
appellant/husband are extremely serious in nature including allegations of
physical abuse and bordering on depravity. According to the wife, it was
unbearable, which was revealed by her during in-camera proceedings as
she submitted painfully about the severe mental/physical agony from the
appellant from the date of marriage. Although the personal interaction with
the parties reveal the above facts, we thought it prudent to carefully
examine the impugned order and the evidence adduced by the parties
before the learned Trial Court by way of abundant caution.
38. Even upon perusal of the entire evidence thoroughly, considering the
stand taken by the respondent/wife regarding irreconcilable differences
between the parties coupled with the allegations of physical abuse and
cruelty meted out by the appellant/husband as well as the evidence relied
upon by the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with or set aside
the impugned order.
39. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently,
F.C.A.No.115 of 2024 is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand
vacated. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
40. The parties are liberty to lead their respectively life independently,
since the marriage is broken irrevocably.
________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
___________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 03.09.2025
Vsv
