Telangana High Court
Mr. Sidharth Bhagavathula vs Mrs. Surekha Ponkam on 21 August, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.67 OF 2025
% 20--08--2025
# Sri Sidharth Bhagavathula
... Appellant
vs.
$ Mrs.Surekha Ponkam
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.V.S.Prasada Rao
^Counsel for Respondent: Sri Papaiah Peddakula
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. (1897) AC 395 467
2. (1975) 2 SCC 326
3. 1994 (1) SCC 337
4. 2002 (5) SCC 706
5. 2023 (17) SCC 433
6. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822
7. 2007 (4) SCC 511
8. 2008 (7) SCC 734
9. CMA No.68 of 2022, dated: 07.06.2024 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana.
2/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.67 OF 2025
Between:
Sri Sidharth Bhagavathula
... Appellant
And
Mrs.Surekha Ponkam
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 20.08.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
______________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
F.C.A.NO.67 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-husband aggrieved by the
order passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge
Cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, dated
31.01.2025 in F.C.O.P.No.448 of 2020.
2. Appellant is the petitioner-husband and respondent is the wife.
3.1. Appellant has filed FCOP No.448 of 2020 under Section
13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent to
dissolve the marriage performed on 19.10.2012 on the ground of
cruelty.
3.2. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was
performed on 19.10.2012 at Flat No.102, Alekya Homes,
Chandanagar, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs, it is a love
marriage and they are blessed with a son by name Shriyansh, aged
about 7 years. Respondent has completed B.Tech and working in
Google. They lived happily for few years with small differences and
conflicts and their marriage life was sailing smoothly till the birth of the
child. After the birth of the child, difference cropped up between them.
4/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
Respondent used to blame the appellant and abuse him for one or the
other reasons. Appellant was working in long shift and he did not have
time to help the respondent in house hold chores. Respondent was not
happy with the income of the appellant and she used to nag and
complain that he is inefficient, due to his inefficiency he is not getting
promotions in the job and not keeping the respondent happy by
fulfilling her lavish demands. Appellant tried to do everything for his
wife, he has also purchased gold ornaments every year with his
savings and tried to keep the respondent happy in all possible ways he
can. Respondent was never happy with the appellant as he was
unable to fulfill her unreasonable demands. Respondent was arrogant,
abusive and control freak. Appellant made his best efforts to make his
wife happy but she used to abuse him in front of his parents and
growing kid. Respondent used to fight with the appellant in the middle
of the night to which he lost his mental peace and he was not able to
concentrate on his job.
3.3 In the month of November, 2017, due to the continuous nagging
and harassment of the respondent, the appellant lost his mental
balance and strike his wrist against the wall which resulted in a hairline
fracture. Since 2017, appellant’s life became miserable and he was
left with no option, left his house in the month of October, 2019,
unable to live under one roof with his wife, since then he was residing
in the address shown in the cause title. Appellant unable to digest the
5/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
cruel and sadistic behavior of the respondent, prayed to grant divorce
on the ground of cruelty.
4. Respondent filed her counter admitting the marriage and the
child born out of the lawful wedlock, denied rest of the allegations, she
further contended that she has utmost love and affection towards her
husband as her marriage is a love marriage. Respondent is doing a
private job and her salary been spent for the family, she never used
any filthy language towards the appellant due to utmost love and
affection. Since 2018, appellant is in illegal contact with another lady
by name Debarati Ghosh, whenever she asked about the illegal contact
of the appellant with the above said lady, her husband abused her in
filthy language, harassed her physically and mentally. Appellant has
created false and baseless story for the purpose of filing the case and
she is ready to live with her husband for her future and for the future
of the child. It is the appellant who wants to live separately as he is in
illegal contact with another lady and he is trying to get second
marriage with her, and prayed to dismiss the same.
5. Appellant is examined as PW.1, examined PW.2-B.Srinivas,
PW.3-B.Sathyavathi, got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Respondent is
examined as RW.1. No documents are marked on her side.
6. The Trial Court after going through the evidence adduced by the
parties, dismissed the FCOP.
6/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
Submissions on behalf of Appellant’s counsel:
7.1. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that
mental cruelty as originally understood and applied as a ground of
divorce in England, which required actual physical harm and mental
harm to be proven for grant of divorce under that head (See Russell
Vs. Russell 1). India has moved away from the concept of physical and
mental harm as a basis for grant of divorce for mental cruelty which
evolved the principle of “Reasonable Apprehension of Harm” by the
party seeking divorce. (See N.G.Dastane Vs. S.Datane 2). Mental
cruelty principle is such conduct which “inflicts such mental pain and
suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the
other”. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that
parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together (See V.Bhagat
Vs. D.Bhagat 3).
7.2. The case of the appellant rests more particularly with reference
to Paragraph No.1269 in Page Nos.601-602 in Halsbury’s Laws of
England, IV Edition, which has been applied by the Supreme Court in
numerous decisions more notables in Praveen Mehta Vs. Indrajith
Mehta4. It can be stated that constant taunts, abusive languages, or
gestures of a constant nature which rendered marriage into a “shell”
where all the feelings from one spouse to the other spouse do not exist
1
(1897) AC 395 467
2
(1975) 2 SCC 326
3
1994 (1) SCC 337
4
2002 (5) SCC 706
7/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
anymore which constitute mental cruelty on which divorce can be
granted.
7.3. Counsel submits that where parties are separated for a very
long length of time, which has reduced the marriage into a shell with
no content, meaning or purpose except for the continuation of
marriage itself. The Courts have held that continuation of such
marriage is without any purpose and such prolonged separation
renders the marriage into something sterile which the Courts will not
prolong, such a reason itself was held to constitute mental cruelty (See
Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavitha 5 : Amutha Vs. A.R.Subramanian 6, also
relied on Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh 7 and Sathish Vs. Smt.Ganga 8).
7.4. Applying the law to the facts of the case, differences between
the appellant and the respondent arose after the birth of the child i.e.,
on 24.09.2013 and the respondent continuously abused the appellant
in filthy language on a range of issues which included, but were not
limited to, the appellant not being professionally intelligent enough to
secure fast promotion, and not being able to obtain a salary to the
satisfaction of the respondent and such abusive conduct was constant
and unremitting, the most serious charge, which appears to have
vitiated and made the entire marriage toxic and indeed claustrophobic.
5 2023 (17) SCC 433 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822 7 2007 (4) SCC 511 8 2008 (7) SCC 734 8/21 MB,J & BRMR,J FCA_67_2025
7.5. The charge of adultery is the main bone of “discontent” and
“misery” which marred and distressed the entire matrimonial
relationship of the appellant with the respondent, and matters came to
such a head that the appellant has to leave the matrimonial home,
which was bought and belongs to the appellant’s father on 10.10.2019.
From 10.10.2019 till date, the appellant continued to live separately
from the matrimonial home, whereas the respondent continues to live
in the matrimonial house for 6 years. Appellant’s parents are also
senior citizens and they are also suffering due to the present situation.
Respondent has no interest in continuing the matrimonial relationship
with the appellant, since she has made no effort to bring the appellant
back to the matrimonial home, as she has not filed a petition under
Section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The Courts have
repeatedly held that the object of law is to ensure that people has to
live their life in a meaningful manner without violating the law if they
can. Rigid insistence on ensuring the continuance of marriage where
all emotions and feelings between both spouses are dead does not
serve the purpose of marriage, and can cause serious mental harm to
the development of the child out of the wedlock, who is at the age of
12 years.
7.6. The allegations made by the respondent particularly, the
complete unsubstantiated allegation regarding adulterous relationship
with his colleague (Ms.Debarati Ghosh), have completely destroyed the
9/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
relationship, by applying the case laws, the overall marriage ought to
be seen and not the specific instances. It is important to note that the
Trial Court judgment reflects a complete lack of understanding and non
application of mind as regards the present legal conception of mental
cruelty. The period of separation between the appellant and the
respondent need not be limited to the period before filing of O.P. which
was in October, 2020 by which time only one year separation had
passed, but may also include the period after filing of the O.P. and the
position has been upheld by this Court in D.Narsimha Vs. D.Anitha
Vaishnavi 9.
7.7. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 3
collectively and credibly establishes that the respondent used vulgar
and abusive language against the appellant and his parents on multiple
occasions. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is clearly elicited that
the respondent used highly offensive language such as “Lanjakodka”
and “Paper Lanjakodka” in the presence of the minor child. The
evidence on the appellant side has not been discredited in the cross-
examination nor has any effective rebuttal been made.
7.8. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that due to false complaint
made by the respondent, appellant and his father was wrongfully
detained in the police station for an entire day. Though the FIR was
9
CMA No.68 of 2022, dated: 07.06.2024 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana.
10/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
not registered after preliminary enquiry, the Trial Court despite
concluding that the allegation of adultery made by the respondent was
false and unsubstantiated, failed to draw adverse inference in it and
also failed to consider the appellant’s evidence regarding the
respondent’s habitual behavior in a proper perspective and prayed to
allow the Appeal.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent:
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court
has properly evaluated the evidence on record and rightly dismissed
the FCOP filed by the appellant for grant of divorce on the ground of
cruelty. Counsel further submits that respondent is still residing in the
house of the appellant and it is the appellant who left the company of
his wife and no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the
Appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.
10. Appellant’s counsel has filed his written arguments.
11. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the impugned order
in F.C.O.P.No.448 of 2020, dated 31.01.2025 suffers from any
perversity or illegality, if so, requires interference of this Court?
12.1. The evidence of the appellant is that after the birth of the child
(24.09.2013) differences cropped up between him and his wife, she
11/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
used to abuse him for one or the other reason, she was not happy with
the income of the appellant and used to nag and complain that he is
inefficient due to which he is not getting promotions in the job and not
keeping the respondent happy by fulfilling her lavish demands, he
made his best efforts to make his wife happy but she used to abuse
him infront of his parents and growing kid and she used to fight with
him in the middle of the night due to which he lost his mental peace,
unable to concentrate on the job. In the month of November, 2017,
due to continuous nagging and harassment of the respondent, which
became unbearable, lost his mental balance and strike his wrist
against the wall which resulted in hairline fracture. He left the house
in the month of October, 2019 and residing separately.
12.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not
mentioned about the abusement in his petition and that the
respondent is living with his parents and the saturation point is the use
of the word such as “LANJAKODKA” “PAPER LANJAKODKA” and many
more words that he cannot say and that he has not produced any
document regarding filing of false cases against him and his parents by
the respondent after receiving divorce notice and he has not filed
rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondent, his son by name
Shriyansh is living with the respondent, he is not visiting the house to
meet his parents and he knows Debarati Ghosh who is an ex-office
colleague, both worked in the same office for a period of two years
12/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
after his marriage, witness was confronted with Xerox copy of
photographs wherein he admits that it is he and Debarati Ghosh, it
was at a public place, another photo is in a Pub. PW.1 denied the
suggestion that he has illicit affair with Debarati Ghosh.
13.1. PW.2 is the father of the appellant, his evidence is similar with
that of the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the arrogant nature of the
respondent. He further went on to depose that when living together
with his son, respondent used vulgar comment on the appellant,
himself and his wife stating that “why are you washing his clothes, he
goes and sleep with different women and if you want to wash his
clothes then wash the clothes of the women with whom he slept” and
that the respondent used to address his son as “Lanjja kodaka” every
day and it was heart wrench to hear such words against his son, she
also abused his wife as old bitch (musali Lanjja), when the appellant
and respondent had arguments, she used to go to terrace and threaten
that she will commit suicide and he used to go running behind her,
pleaded her to come back. In the month of October, 2019, the
respondent had a big fight with his son and abused him to get out of
the house and unable to bear the harassment, appellant left the house
and the respondent is staying with him in the house along with his
grand-son and she also used to abuse him and his wife in filthy
language and comment that “you have three bed rooms, and that his
son will get three woman and sleep in three rooms” and he lost his
13/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
hard-earned reputation in the society. In the month of March, 2021,
respondent filed a complaint in Ameenpur police station against him,
his wife and against the appellant and the police abused him in filthy
language, made them sit in the police station for whole day and later,
she complained in Sangareddy police station. There also they abused
him in filthy language and they were made to sit the whole day.
13.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that the respondent is
residing in the house where himself and his wife were residing and he
requested his son to come back home but he was reluctant to do so,
his son never expressed the exact reason for leaving the house, he did
not file any document regarding the police complaint lodged by the
respondent at Ameenpur police station against him, his wife and son.
So also he has not given any complaint to the Higher Officials against
the SHO of P.S., Ameenpur. PW.2 denied the suggestion that
respondent never used filthy language towards the appellant in their
presence at any point of time. He also denied the suggestion that
appellant is having extra marital affair.
14. PW.3 is the mother of the appellant, her evidence is similar to
that of PW.2. In her cross-examination, she stated that her son is not
willing to stay with the respondent and she has not mentioned the
abusive/filthy language in her chief-affidavit. Witness adds that she do
not want to use the words in her life as such she has not mentioned
the same in the chief, she do not know personally what happened in
14/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
the police station. Witness adds that she came to know through her
son and her husband. She denied the suggestion that her son is
having extra marital affair for that reason, he filed the present O.P. for
divorce.
15. Appellant-petitioner stated in his pleadings that the respondent
used to abuse him in filthy language, he admitted in his cross-
examination that those words are not mentioned in his chief as well as
in the petition. In the affidavit of PW.2 and PW.3, they have
mentioned the words of “Lanjakoduka” which is an improvement in
their evidence.
16.1. Respondent evidence is that appellant-petitioner was having
extra marital relationship with his colleague by name Debarati Ghosh,
when she questioned him, he used to harass her mentally and
physically, she informed the same to her inlaws but they have
supported their son and panchayath was held before the elders
wherein her husband has admitted his guilt and promised that he will
never commit again and she has considered the same in view of the
future of the child and that her husband left the matrimonial home
only for continuing his extra marital affairs with the women.
16.2. In her cross-examination, she stated that appellant-petitioner
has hit his hand to the wall and suffered hairline fracture to his wrist
and her husband left the house on 10.12.2019, he never came back to
15/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
the house and that the appellant-petitioner is the only son to his
parents. Panchayath was held at her house before her parents and
inlaws. Witness adds that only her inlaws were present but she do not
remember the date, month and year and that the appellant-petitioner
is paying the school fees for her son. She never informed her parents
about the discussions, panchayats was held between her and her
inlaws. RW.1 denied the suggestion that allegations of extra marital
relationship is false and the appellant-petitioner was forced to leave
the house due to her ambitious nature and expectations of leading
luxurious life and that she has no intention to lead the matrimonial life
with her husband.
17. A suggestion is put to RW.1 (respondent) that in the month of
October, 2019, they had a big fight and she asked her husband to go
out of the house. PW.2 and PW.3 have spoken about the same in their
chief affidavit. On close scrutiny of the pleadings of the appellant, it is
not his case that the respondent abused the appellant to get out of the
house. It is the appellant, who left the house in the month of October,
2019.
18. The enquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charged as
a cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the
petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious
for him to live with the respondent : (See N.G. Dastane2).
16/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
19. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as
that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and
suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the
other. Mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot
reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such
that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with
such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not
necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to
the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard
must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the
society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever
living together in case they are already living apart and all other
relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor
desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not
amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in
each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.
If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had
to the context in which they were made : (See V.Bhagat3)
20. Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty
includes both physical and mental cruelty. The legal conception of
cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a
matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act. The
legislature has refrained from giving a comprehensive definition of the
17/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
expression that may cover all cases, realising the danger in making
such attempt. The accepted legal meaning in England as also in India
of this expression, which is rather difficult to define, had been “conduct
of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health
(bodily or mental), or to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such
danger”: (See Praveen Mehta4)
21. 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 pinpoint 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 are relevant factors which a court must take into
consideration : (See Rakesh Raman5)
22. Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship,
and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing
for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal
formality devoid of any substance. This Court has consistently held
that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a
relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes. In the present case,
the length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties
make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived
: (See Amutha6)
18/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
23. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we
deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour
which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”.
The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only
illustrative and exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties,
acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for
the parties to live with each other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of
the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the
wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty,
frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and
neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the
other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
19/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse
actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The
treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension
must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the
married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate
for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few
isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.
The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the
relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to
live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty :
(See Samar Ghosh7)
24. The marriage between the parties is dead for all practical
purposes and there is no chance of it being retrieved, the continuance
of such marriage would itself amount to cruelty, and, accordingly, in
exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution we direct
that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent shall stand
dissolved, subject to the appellant paying to the respondent a sum of
rupees two lakhs by way of permanent alimony : (See Sathish8)
25.1. Learned counsel for the respondent has distinguished the cases
cited by the learned Senior Counsel and contended that appellant has
20/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
not established reasonable apprehension of harm hence N.G.Dastane2
is not helpful to the appellant’s case. Divorce is granted to the parties
by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme
Court in the case of V.Bhagat3. The decision in Praveen Mehta case4
is that the wife refused to go for medical treatment to improve her
health so that the parties may lead a normal sexual life as the wife
refused to subject herself to medical test on the advise of the Doctor,
she stayed away from the matrimonial home on which ground the
divorce is granted. In Samar Ghosh case7, the parties were residing
separately since 6 ½ years prior to the marriage and the appellant has
not satisfied any of the illustrative. In Rakesh Raman’s case5 parties
were residing separately since 25 years. In Sathish’s case8 divorce
was granted by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India by the
Supreme Court. In Amutha’s case6 filing of false criminal cases has led
to divorce.
25.2. The decision in D.Narsimha’s case9 is not helpful to the case of
the appellant in view of the fact that husband in that case was sent to
jail during the crime stage and he was acquitted after fulfledged trial,
the facts differ from the present case.
26. As rightly contended by the respondent’s counsel, the decisions
cited are distinguishable from the facts of the case.
27. The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire
matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special
21/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious
reproaches, complaints, acquisitions or taunts. In case where no
violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial
pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or
conduct as having or lagging the nature or quality which renders them
capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty.
Where one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially
a question of fact. The Court should bear in mind the physical and
mental condition of the parties as well as their social status and should
consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on
the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the
spouses from that point of view.
28. The word cruelty has not been defined in Hindu Marriage Act.
It has been used in section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act in the context of
human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial
duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is
adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical,
intentional or unintentional. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as
to the nature of cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such
treatment on the mind of the spouse whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the
other, ultimately is a matter of interference to be drawn by taking into
account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining
spouse.
22/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
29. It is the case of the respondent that since 2018, appellant
developed illicit contact with another lady by name Debarati Ghosh,
whenever she questioned her husband he used to abuse her in filthy
language, harass her physically and mentally. The admission made by
the appellant-PW.1 in his cross-examination that he and Debarati
Ghosh were in a public place at one point of time and on another
occasion they were in the Pub. The defense taken by the respondent
supports her contention with that of the admission made by the
appellant in his cross-examination.
30. It is not disputed that respondent and her son are residing in
the house of PW.2 and PW.3 and the appellant himself started residing
separately. On overall scrutiny of the evidence of the appellant with
that of the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 goes to show that there are
trival issues between the couple.
31. Marriage of the appellant with that of the respondent took place
on 19.10.2012, child born to the parties is on 24.09.2013 i.e. within a
period of one year and appellant left the matrimonial home in the
month of October, 2019, parties lived together for a period of 6 years.
As stated in the preceding paragraph that the appellant has failed to
prove cruelty in the hands of the respondent, furthermore the
appellant admitted that the abusive words used by the respondent are
not stated in the petition.
23/21 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_67_2025
32. The burden is on the petitioner to prove mental cruelty, he failed
to convince the Court that his spouse (respondent) conduct has caused
him mental suffering and made it impossible to continue the marriage.
33. The Trial Court has dismissed the O.P. filed by the appellant
holding that the appellant himself left the house and that the
respondent is still residing in the matrimonial home and he has not
made efforts to join the respondent and failed to produce cogent
evidence.
34. We are of the firm view that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed
the O.P. filed by the appellant in view of the reasons stated supra by
us and we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
35. FCA.No.67 of 2025 is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications/applications if, any shall stands
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
August, 2025.
PLV