Telangana High Court
S. Ganga Raju vs Smt. S. Shirisha , Lakshmi on 28 May, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.71 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order
dated 16.09.2022 in H.M.O.P.No.09 of 2015 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at
Manthani.
2. The appellant herein/husband had filed an application
against the respondent/wife before the trial Court vide
H.M.O.P.No.09 of 2015 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu
Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty. Appellant/husband examined himself as P.W.1 before
the trial Court and also got examined P.W.2 on his behalf and
marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. Respondent/wife was
examined herself as R.W.1 and also got examined R.W.2 on her
behalf, but no documents were filed on their behalf. The trial
Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed
the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/husband
preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/husband stated that
the parents of the appellant herein were having three sons. The
appellant herein was the elder son and he was working in the
Indian Army, his first younger brother was also working in Army
and also married and his second younger brother was pursuing
Post Graduation. After marriage the respondent/wife joined the
appellant parents’ house at Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District,
on the same day and the marriage was consummated. At the
time of marriage, appellant was working as Rank Naik in
Artillery Regiment of the Indian Army at Jammu Kashmir, as
such he kept her with his parents at Godavarikhani. He also
stated that respondent was not doing any household works
during her stay at Godavarikhani and sitting idle. She was
scolding that appellant had not purchased any gold ornaments
for her, as such she committed a sin by marrying him and she
married him at the instance of her parents. Respondent/wife
refused to stay with his parents and left the house in August,
2009 without any reason and returned again after lot of
persuasions of the appellant and his family members and after
conducting several mediations by elders in January, 2010 and
again left him in February, 2010. Later, she joined him at
Faridkot, Punjab in the Month of May, 2010, but left him again
in January, 2011, along with her brother when she was
3
conceived. Respondent was scolding the appellant and his
family members in filthy language. In February, 2011, appellant
requested her parents to send her with him to lead happy
marital life, but they refused for the same and lodged a
complaint with the Police under Section 498-A of IPC.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/husband further
stated that appellant got issued a legal notice to the
respondent/wife on 06.06.2011, calling her to join the
matrimonial home and respondent/wife gave reply notice on
17.06.2011 and he in turn sent the rejoinder on 16.07.2011.
The respondent/wife gave birth to a male child by name Master
Varun on 20.08.2011, but it was not informed to the appellant
either by her or her parents and he came to know about the
same in September, 2011. When the appellant/husband visited
the respondent’s parents’ house, they have not allowed him or
his family members to perform the naming ceremony of Master
Varun. Appellant/husband filed a petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in November, 2011, before the
learned District Judge, Faridkot, vide case No.72 of 2011, for
restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving summons,
respondent/wife agreed to join with him at the place of his work
at Faridkot in May, 2012 and stayed with him till January,
4
2013 and went to her parents’ house for Sankranthi on
10.01.2013, as such he had withdrawn the case on 14.01.2013.
In April, 2013, when appellant requested the respondent to
come back, she refused. Later, he came to know through her
relatives that she gave birth to a female child by name Varsha
on 13.05.2013. He had no knowledge regarding the birth of the
child, as the respondent or her parents did not inform to him.
When he transferred to Assam in the month of January, 2014,
respondent refused to join him. The elders of the caste
reconciled between them, as they have two children, she joined
him with two children in the month of October, 2014.
Respondent/wife threatened his parents on 16.11.2014 and
drunken hair oil, when his parents joined her in the hospital,
her parents came to the hospital and took her to their house
along with two children. When he tried to contact the
respondent, she refused to talk with him on phone. She also
threatened his parents by false complaint. This attitude of the
respondent, clearly shows that she was not intended to lead
marital life with the appellant. He also took care of the
respondent and children and used to keep them happy, but
respondent without any responsibility or love deserted him.
Appellant/husband made all his best efforts, but the
respondent/wife failed to discharge her duties as wife, as such
5
there is no scope of continuation of marriage and their marriage
was irretrievably broken down. Respondent/wife treated the
appellant/husband with cruelty and it caused a reasonable
apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful and dangerous
to live with her. Respondent/wife deserted the
appellant/husband on 16.11.2014 and therefore he filed the
O.P for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty, but the trial Court without appreciating the
facts properly, dismissed the application.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant/husband mainly
contended that the citation relied upon by the trial Court is not
applicable to the present case. While he was discharging his
duties at Assam, respondent/wife gave complaint to the Police
and they in turn registered the same as F.I.R.No.10 of 2015.
She treated him and his family members with cruelty on several
occasions. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order
of the trial Court.
6. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.
7. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was
performed on 20.05.2009 and they are blessed with two
6
children. There is no dispute regarding marriage and paternity
of the two children. Respondent/wife in her counter denied all
the allegations made by the appellant/husband and stated that
she intended to live with him as he retired from Army. She
further stated that parents of the brothers of the appellant were
harassing her for demand of dowry and she also subsequently
stated that if the appellant undertakes to take care of them
properly, she is ready to join him.
8. Perusal of the record clearly shows that there were
differences between the couple from the beginning of the
marriage i.e., from 2009 till filing of the case in the year 2015.
Appellant/husband stated that respondent/wife was not staying
with him or his parents and left him on several occasions, as
such he brought her back with the mediation of elders. In fact,
he also filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving
of the summons, with the intervention of elders, when she
joined him, he had withdrawn the case. Even afterwards, when
she deserted him, he filed O.P for dissolution of marriage,
whereas, respondent/wife contended that her parents gave
Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant/husband as dowry. Apart from
that gave Rs.2,00,000/- for domestic articles and also gave
three Tulas of gold and 25 Tulas of silver. Though the parents of
7
appellant/husband were harassing her for demand of dowry,
she tolerated the same, but finally driven her out from home on
16.12.2014, as such she gave complaint before the Police and
the same was registered as Cr.No.10 of 2015 and also filed
D.V.C.No.11 of 2015, against the appellant and his family
members. She denied the other allegations made by the
appellant/husband.
9. Perusal of the Order dated 08.02.2019 in D.V.C.No.11 of
2015, shows that appellant/husband resigned to his Army job
and getting pension of Rs.12,000/- per month, as such the
concerned Court granted protection to her under Section 18 of
Domestic Violence Act and also directed the appellant herein to
pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the
children in total Rs.11,000/- per month towards their
maintenance. There was exchange of legal notices between the
parties. In the legal notice dated 06.06.2011, issued to the
respondent/wife by the appellant/husband, he stated that
respondent left his society and residing with his parents without
any sufficient cause. In a rejoinder given by the
appellant/husband, he stated that he was ready and willing to
take back his wife. The main contention of the appellant herein
is that respondent/wife was abusing him and his family
8
members in filthy language. She was not attending any
household works and she was leaving to her parent’s house
without any sufficient cause. He made his best efforts to get her
back for several times. In fact, he also filed O.P for restitution of
conjugal rights. When the respondent/wife joined him with the
intervention of the elders, he had withdrawn the same. They are
blessed with two children, even afterwards she left him without
any reason and even after issuing legal notice she has not
joined him, as such he filed O.P for divorce. He mainly
contended that respondent/wife made an attempt to commit
suicide by drinking hair oil, as such there is threat to his life
and it amounts to cruelty on her part. Whereas,
respondent/wife contended that it was hair die, but not hair oil.
She admitted that she attempted to commit suicide when
appellant and his family members harassed her and necked her
out of their house along with children. She also stated that after
the attempt to commit suicide, both of them are living
separately i.e., from 2014 onwards. She stated that appellant
was retired from service, as such now it is possible for them to
live together. She also admitted that she along with the
appellant lived together for a period of two years in the entire
marital life. In the Cross-examination of P.W.1 he himself
admitted that he got registered his name in the matrimonial
9
website and he specifically stated that he is not willing to take
her back even if she is willing to join with him as his entire
family was jailed because of her, but he is ready to take his
children. It was elicited from the Cross-examination of P.W.1
that he had not paid any maintenance to his wife and children,
but added that she has not furnished account details, as such
he has not paid the amount. He has not preferred any appeal on
the D.V.C. As the appellant/husband came before the Court for
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, it is for him to
establish cruelty either physical or mental cruelty.
10. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 1 , the apex Court
relying on its earlier judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu
Kohli 2 observed certain incidents of cruelty in paragraph
No.101 which are as under:-
101. 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 not 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
1
(2007) 4 SCC 511
2
(2006) 4 SCC 558
10clear 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.
(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.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal
standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to
mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also
amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes
unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset
may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty.
(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 behaviour of a spouse, the wronged
party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other
party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilisation without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the
11wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical
reason or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to
mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any
physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may
amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded 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, does
not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of
the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to
mental cruelty.
11. In this case, admittedly appellant was working in Army
and residing in faraway places. Initially, respondent was
residing with his parents and later she joined him at his place of
work. Though there are disturbances between them, they are
blessed with two children. The trial Court observed that he
provoked her to commit suicide. She attempted to commit
suicide only once and single act of cruelty is not a ground for
grant of divorce. Appellant herein registered his name in the
matrimonial site even without granting of divorce. This fact
supports the version of the respondent/wife that he intended to
perform another marriage for dowry. Even if he comes on leave,
he was not coming to her house and staying with his parents
12
only and it is the fact that he retired from the Army and thus
respondent/wife stated that now they can live together. The trial
Court considering all the facts rightly dismissed the petition.
The object of the family Court is not to disrupt the family, but
try to protect the union of the family. The allegation made by
the appellant against the respondent neither amounts to
physical or mental cruelty and the trial Court already observed
that attempt to commit suicide is a single act of cruelty and on
that ground divorce cannot be granted. Therefore, this Court
finds no illegality or infirmity in the Order of the trial Court and
it needs no interference.
12. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed by confirming the Order of the trial Court in
H.M.O.P.No.09 of 2015, dated 16.09.2022. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 28.05.2025
tri
13
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.71 of 2023
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
DATE: 28.05.2025
TRI