[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
P Sandeep, Hyd vs P.Radhika , T.Radhika, Hyd on 30 March, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.220 of 2016
Date:30.03.2026
Between:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx ......appellant
and
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ......respondent
This Court made the following
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. S. Raghu ram, learned counsel representing Smt.
K.Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellant. Even today, there is no
representation on behalf of the respondent.
2. This Family Court appeal is preferred by the appellant-husband
challenging the order dated 27.07.2016 passed in F.C.O.P No.1227 of
2011 by the learned Family Court, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the Wife.
The appellant - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP No.1227 of 2011
KL,J & BRMR,J
under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for
short, 'the Act, 1955') against the respondent - wife seeking
dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion
contending on the following grounds:
i. His marriage with the respondent - wife was performed on
23.04.2008.
ii. It was an arranged marriage. There were no issues out of their
lawful wedlock.
iii. She used to visit her parental home very frequently without
information to the appellant or his family members.
iv. In July, 2009, the respondent conceived, but due to severe ill
health and lack of proper self-care, the pregnancy was aborted
in September, 2009.
v. She was suffering from tuberculosis.
vi. On her wish, he got her to pursue B.Ed. course. While studying
she used to visit her parents' house and thereafter her behaviour
became worse.
KL,J & BRMR,J
vii. There was lack of understanding and cooperation from her.
When he informed the same to her parents, they abused him in
filthy language and forcibly took her to their house.
viii. In August 2010, in the presence of elders, they entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was reduced to
writing.
ix. As per the said MOU, she received all the gold ornaments and
other articles belonging to her as listed therein. He also paid a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash to her and agreed to pay remaining
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of passing of decree of
divorce.
x. In December, 2010, both the parties have filed OP No. 82 of
2011 seeking divorce through mutual consent.
xi. On 05-09-2011, when he went to the Court to pay the said
balance amount to her in terms of the MOU, she did not attend
the Court and instead she filed an affidavit stating that she was
not interested in divorce and she was ready to join him.
Therefore, the Court had dismissed the said OP No. 82 of 2011
on 05.09.2011.
KL,J & BRMR,J
xii. On the complaint lodged by her with false allegation that he
demanded additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. 17.09.2011, when
he was away from home, the police took his parents to
P.S.,Madannapet and abused in filthy language.
xiii. Since August, 2009, she was living separately from him and
there is no hope of reunion between them.
4. With the said contentions, the appellant sought decree of
divorce from his wife.
5. The respondent herein filed counter opposing the said
petition filed by the appellant contending:-
i. At the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, four tulas Gold, ½ tula gold ring, a two
wheeler and household utensils to him, the same is reduced into
writing and signed by father of the appellant.
ii. She had conceived and the pregnancy was aborted in
September, 2009.
iii. The appellant, with the help of the President, Mr. Bhasker, of
their Community Sangham, forcibly obtained her signature on
KL,J & BRMR,J
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), though she was
not willing to go for divorce.
iv. Later, he persuaded her to state before the Court that she was
not interested to obtain divorce by mutual consent, assuring her
that he could continue the marital relationship.
v. She made the said statement before the Court hoping that he
would continue marital life.
vi. After dismissal of O.P.No.82 of 2011, she resided with him in
his house.
vii. During that period, he took back the aforesaid cash and the gold
ornaments.
viii. In September 2011, he sent her to her parents' house with a
promise that he would take her back to his home within a week.
Instead, he filed the present O.P. seeking divorce.
ix. She never suffered with Tuberculosis and she is willing to
undergo any medical test to prove the same.
6. With the said contentions, she sought to dismiss the said OP
filed by husband.
KL,J & BRMR,J
7. In order to prove the case of the appellant, he himself
examined as PW.1 He also examined his father as PW.2, Dr. Roya
Rozati as PW.3 and Dr. K.P Rajender Kumar as P.W.4 and got
marked Exs. P1 to P8. Ex.P.1 is wedding card. Ex.P2 is wedding
photographs. Ex.P3 is petition in OP 82/2011. Ex.P4 is terms of
compromise, dated 10.1.2011. Ex.P5 is medical records. Ex.P6 is
"Oppanda Patramu" executed by the respondent - wife. Ex.P7 and P8
are letters, dated 6.9.2010 and dated 13-10-2009.
8. Respondent herself examined as RW1 and marked Exs.R1,
Nischithardha Patramu (Engagement Deed) dated 23.03.2008. Ex.X.1
is a copy of final diagnoses of the respondent issued by Owaisi
Hospital and Research Centre.
9. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary,
vide order dated 27.07.2016 learned Judge, Family Court, dismissed
the said O.P. holding that the ground of cruelty was not substantiated
since P.W.2, father of appellant, does not speak about any acts of
cruelty on the part of the respondent - wife and the respondent also
made it clear that her husband supported her when she suffered from
health issues. The learned Family Court further held that the
respondent - wife left the company of the appellant - husband in the
KL,J & BRMR,J
first week of September, 2010, and the date of filing of present O.P. is
23.09.2011 which does not fulfill the statutory requirement of two
years of desertion as stipulated by law.
10. Challenging the said decree, the appellant - husband filed
the present appeal.
11. Perused the record. It is not in dispute that the parties
herein are legally wedded couple and they have no issues.
12. Appellant examined as PW.1 and deposed that right from
the marriage, respondent was arrogant and non-cooperative and never
tried to mingle with his family members. The respondent was
diagnosed as suffering from T.B. In August, 2010 on elaborate talks
between both the parties, their parents and caste elders, they entered
into MOU with specific terms mentioned therein and filed a petition
vide O.P NO.82 of 2011 for divorce with mutual consent. But she
turned around and stated that she wants to live marital life with him.
He further stated that during her stay with the appellant, she acted in a
cruel manner, leaving the marital home without his knowledge and
she deserted him in August 2009.
KL,J & BRMR,J
13. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he is not
interested in taking her back, even though she is willing to join him
for the reason that she was suffering from tuberculosis and to prove
the same, he filed Ex.P.5 - medical certificate and prescription to that
effect.
14. PW.2, the father of PW.1, deposed on the same lines to that
of PW.1. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not make
any effort to reconcile the parties and bring them together. The
respondent is always willing to stay with the appellant. A doctor at
KIMS informed that she had no chance of giving birth to a child. He
did not give any complaint to any authority or individual with regard
to her behavior till date. He further admitted that he does not know the
reason for the gap of three months between the dismissal of the mutual
consent divorce petition and the filing of the present O.P. He further
admitted that he had issued a cheque to her when both the parties filed
a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Even after dismissal of the
said petition, he did not instruct his bank to stop payment of the
cheque issued in Court.
15. PW.3, Professor and Head of the Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology at Owaisi Hospital and Deccan Medical College,
KL,J & BRMR,J
deposed that the respondent had a history of one missed abortion. She
was advised to undergo anti-tubercular treatment. She was
subsequently examined on 07.10.2010 and was advised to continue
the anti-tubercular treatment. He further deposed that she has less than
10% chances of conceiving, subject to further advanced treatment.
16. During cross-examination, he admitted that when the
respondent was admitted as an in-patient in their hospital, treatment
was given partly with a view to enable her to conceive in future. He
did not provide any other treatment. He also admitted that the
respondent was not definitively diagnosed with tuberculosis and that it
was only a provisional diagnosis, for which complete reports were yet
to be obtained.
17. PW.4, a T.B. Medical Officer at Osmania General Hospital,
deposed that the respondent approached him to conceive and was
suffering from secondary infertility. She produced documents relating
to a diagnostic laparoscopy, which indicated symptoms of Koch's
disease (tuberculosis). He treated the respondent and her T.B. number
was 47 of 2010. The treatment continued for about six months. During
cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that she was brought by her
mother-in-law, who was working as a Head Nurse. He further
KL,J & BRMR,J
admitted that it was a case of extra-pulmonary (general) Koch's
tuberculosis. He does not examine the genital areas to determine
whether a person is suffering from tuberculosis, but relies on the
report of the gynecologist. Any patient would recover after
undergoing treatment for a period of six months. The respondent had
taken treatment for six months, attended follow-up regularly, and the
treatment concluded on 21.08.2010, during which period her weight
increased from 40 kgs. to 43 kgs.
18. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1. She deposed
that on instigation of Mr. Bhasker, the President of the Sangam,she
signed the MOU even though she was not interested to obtain
divorce. She stated that she never suffered from any disease like
tuberculosis and that the prescriptions filed by the appellant were
created for the purpose of filing the present O.P. She stated that she
received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant, along with
gold ornaments, and a post-dated cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-. She
further stated that after the dismissal of the petition for divorce with
mutual consent, she stayed with the appellant, and gave back the
aforesaid cash and gold articles to him The post-dated cheque was
also not encashed and was taken back. She deposed that in September
KL,J & BRMR,J
2011, she was sent by him to her parents' house persuading her to stay
there for one week and take rest. The appellant asked her to sign
stamp papers intending to open a locker and depositing money in
FDRs, and believing his words in good faith, she signed them,
however, the same were later used as Oppanda Patram, which is
marked as Ex.P6. When she attempted to return and live with him, she
was not allowed to enter the house. She asserted that there was no
desertion on her part at any time and after dismissal of the petition for
divorce by mutual consent, she and her husband lived together for
more than a month in September 2011. At the time of marriage, her
parents gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 4 tulas Gold, ½ tula gold ring, two
wheeler and household utensils and same was reduced into writing
which is Ex.B.1.
19. During cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that her mother-
in-law had taken her to Owaisi Hospital for a check-up on 12.01.2010.
She further admitted that the outpatient card dated 30.08.2010 issued
by KIMS contains the same patient details as those in the Owaisi
Hospital discharge card, and that the Gynecology card of Modern
Government Maternity Hospital bears her phone number. She also
KL,J & BRMR,J
admitted that she had seen Ex.P.5 - medical record immediately after
appearing in the case and receiving copies of the documents, she did
not dispute the existence or correctness of the said document. She
further admitted her signature, along with the signatures of her
parents, on Ex.P.6 - Oppanda patram dated 20.09.2010, but did not
explain under what circumstances her parents had signed the same.
She also admitted her signatures on it. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 letters shows
that the contents were written by some other person.
20. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the marriage of the
parties was performed on 23.04.2008 and it is an arranged marriage.
They are issueless. On 10.01.2011, they entered into Ex.P.4 - terms of
compromise agreeing to take divorce with mutual consent with
specific terms mentioned there. In pursuance of Ex.P.4, they filed a
petition vide O.P. No.82 of 2011 seeking divorce with mutual consent
on the ground that there is no compatibility between the parties.
According to the said Deed of terms of compromise entered into
between the parties, certain amounts and articles were also exchanged
between them. However, at the stage of consideration of the said
petition, the respondent expressed before the Court that she was not
KL,J & BRMR,J
willing to proceed with the divorce and that she desired to continue
the marital relationship with the appellant. Consequently, the said
petition for divorce with mutual consent came to be dismissed on
05.09.2011.
21. Thereafter, the appellant has filed the present OP against the
respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty
and desertion. It is to be seen that there should be two years of
desertion prior to the date of filing of OP in terms of Section 13(1) (ib)
of the Act, 1955. In the present case, the appellant filed the aforesaid
OP on 23.09.2011 contending that the respondent deserted him in
August, 2009.
22. As discussed supra, both the appellant and respondent
decided to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent. They have
also entered into a deed of compromise on the specific terms
mentioned therein. They have filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ib)
of the Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage with mutual consent,
in January, 2011. The same was dismissed on 05.09.2011. In the said
petition, they have specifically stated that they are staying separately
from August, 2009 and the respondent was residing at her parents
house. Both of them decided to depart from marital relation and
KL,J & BRMR,J
decision was taken on 20.09.2009. As discussed supra, the said OP
was dismissed on 05.09.2011 and thereafter, the appellant has filed the
aforesaid FCOP No.1227 of 2011 on 23.09.2011. Respondent
admitted the said facts during her cross-examination.
23. It is also apt to note that the respondent had executed Ex.B.6
Oppandapatram wherein she has stated that she is not in a position to
lead marital life with the appellant due to personal reasons. On return
of Rs.5 Lakhs paid by her parents towards furniture and other purpose
and return of 5½ tulas of gold, there will not be any relation between
the appellant and respondent. She has executed the said
Oppandapatram in the presence of her father, brothers, maternal uncle,
other family members and also elders.
24. In Ex.P.7 letter, she has specifically mentioned that she
could not conceive and unable to give birth to the children. She is
suffering with Tuberculosis. She got laparoscopy operation and her
tubes got damaged. Even then, her husband is supporting her but her
parents are not agreeing for operation. Because of this, she was
moving to her home with her parents with complete willingness. Her
husband is no way responsible. She incurred an amount of
Rs.1,10,000/- towards surgery and her parents have not agreed to pay
KL,J & BRMR,J
the said amount. Her in-laws are willing for second surgery and to pay
the amount completely. Therefore, she is leaving home with her own
and her in-laws are no way responsible for leaving home. Her parents
are not willing for her surgery. Her husband can go for any decision.
She is fully agreed for the same.
25. In Ex.P.8 - letter she has stated that she does not have any
problem with her in-laws. The appellant is a B.Tech. graduate. The
respondent completed her M.A. B.Ed. qualification. Both of them are
highly qualified.
26. As discussed supra, according to the appellant, respondent
suffered with Tuberculosis and her pregnancy got aborted. There is no
possibility of she conceiving. The said facts show that there is strained
relation between the appellant and respondent. Therefore, they have
decided to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent and
accordingly, they have entered into Ex.P.4 - deed of compromise
dated 10.01.2011 and filed Ex.P.3 petition vide O.P.No.82 of 2011.
Thereafter, respondent turned around and decided not to obtain decree
of divorce with mutual consent. Therefore, the said OP was dismissed
on 05.09.2011.
KL,J & BRMR,J
27. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the
respondent has lodged a complaint with Police against the appellant
and his parents and in his absence, the police came to his house and
took his parents. They have also abused his parents in filthy language.
Though she expressed her willingness to join the company of the
appellant, she did not file any petition under Section 9 of the Act,
1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. She did not make any
effort through mediators and elders etc., to join the company of the
appellant. Though she has deposed that on the instigation of Mr.
Bhasker, the President of her caste Sangham, she signed MOU, she
did not taken steps to examine the said Bhasker or any person in proof
of the same.
28. To prove that the respondent suffered with Tuberculosis, the
appellant has examined P.Ws.3 and 4 - Doctors. PW.3 specifically
stated that the respondent suffered with Tuberculosis and she was
advised to undergo anti - tuburcular treatment. P.W.4 deposed that the
respondent approached him to conceive and was suffering from
secondary infertility. Therefore, they decided to obtain decree of
divorce with mutual consent. Though they filed the aforesaid OP
No.82 of 2011 seeking dissolution of marriage with mutual consent, it
KL,J & BRMR,J
could not be materialize. Respondent expressed her willingness to lead
marital life with the respondent. She did not take any steps in doing
so. She did not file any application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955
against the appellant seeking restoration of conjugal life. She has
admitted the said facts during the cross-examination.
29. It is apt to note that respondent has stated that she has
received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant along with
gold ornaments and also post-dated cheque for an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- after dismissal of the aforesaid OP No.82 of 2011 filed
by them seeking dissolution of marriage with mutual consent, she
stayed with the appellant, gave back the gold ornaments. She did not
encash the post-dated cheques. However, she did not examine any
witness to prove the same. She has not cross-examined the appellant
(P.W.1) to the said effect. However, in Ex.P.6 - Oppandapatram, she
has mentioned that if the appellant pays the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and
returns 5½ tulas of gold, she would not have any relation with the
appellant. Though there the Ex.P.6 - Oppandapatram is undated, it
was purchased on 20.09.2010. During the cross-examination, she has
categorically admitted that she has studied M.A. Eng., and B.Ed. She
KL,J & BRMR,J
has admitted that Ex.X.1 final diagnosis of the respondent issued by
Owaisi Hospital, dated 30.12.2009 relates to her and during the said
period, she was living with her husband and in-laws. She has admitted
that her mother-in--law took her for check up to Owaisi Hospital.
During cross-examination, she has further admitted that said Owaisi
hospital reports in Ex.P.5 belongs to her. She has admitted her father's
signature in Ex.P.6. She has also admitted her signatures on Exs.7 and
P.8. She has also admitted that she did not state in her counter that her
husband obtained signature on stamp paper informing her that it is for
the purpose of opening locker and putting money in FDR and the
same is used for Ex.P.6 - Oppandapatram. She has also admitted that
she has not stated in her chief examination affidavit as well as in her
counter, the details of her stay with her husband as regards to the dates
and places of their staying together after dismissal of OP No.82 of
2011. She has not filed any proof to show that she returned cash and
gold ornaments after dismissal of OP No.82 of 2011.
30. The contents of Ex.R.1 is to the exchange of cash and
articles mentioned therein as per the prevailing custom. As per Ex.P.4
KL,J & BRMR,J
deed of terms of compromise for obtaining divorce with mutual
consent.
31. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is strained
relation between the appellant and respondent. Admittedly, they are
not staying together from 2009 onwards. They have filed the aforesaid
two OPs in June, 2011 and September, 2011.
32. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order,
learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid OPs.
33. As discussed supra, this Court is of the view that the
respondent suffered with Tuberculosis and infertility problem. The
said facts are also evident from the depositions of P.Ws.3 and 4 and
the same not a ground to obtain decree of divorce. Admittedly, they
are staying separately from 2009 onwards. The said facts were
specifically mentioned in Ex.P.3 i.e. petition in O.P.No.82 of 2011
and Ex.P.4 deed of terms of compromise. Therefore, the marriage of
the appellant with the respondent is irretrievably broken down. They
are staying separately since last 17 years. There is no possibility of re-
union.
KL,J & BRMR,J
34. It is settled principle of law that neither Family Court nor
this Court can grant decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievably
broken down of marriage alone. However, the said aspect can be
considered along with other aspects.
35. As discussed supra, to prove the cruelty and desertion, the
appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and his father as P.W.2. He has
also examined P.Ws.3 and 4 Doctors to prove that the respondent is
suffering with Tuberculosis and also facing infertility problem.
Respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and she did not examine any
other person.
36. Without considering the said aspects, learned Family Court
dismissed the aforesaid OP. Therefore, it is not on consideration of the
aforesaid aspects and it is liable to be set aside and accordingly set
aside. Despite granting liberty, there is no representation on behalf of
respondent.
37. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 27.07.2016 passed in FCOP No.1227 of 2011 by the learned
Family Court, Hyderabad is set aside. FCOP No.1227 of 2011 is
allowed. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent held on
23.04.3008 is dissolved by way of decree of divorce.
KL,J & BRMR,J
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in the appeal case shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
___________________________________
JUSTICE B.R MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Date:30.03.2026.
VVR
