Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 342

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.Sam Koshy, Sambasivarao Naidu, JJ.
K.Sekhar Rao. - Appellant
Versus
K.Rekha. - Respondent
Family Court Appeal No.141 of 2013
Decided On : 23-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. K. Swarna Seshu
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Babu Peddapalli

IMPORTANT POINT
The court recognized the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid basis for divorce, despite the absence of explicit statutory provisions for such a ground.

Headnote:
Divorce - Family Law - Family Courts Act, 1984; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The court interpreted provisions regarding divorce on grounds of cruelty and mental disorder, emphasizing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a significant factor in its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and respondent were married in 1999 and have lived separately since 2008. The appellant sought divorce citing cruelty and mental disorder of the respondent, but the Family Court dismissed the petition, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claims of cruelty and mental disorder. However, it acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to prolonged separation and lack of reconciliation efforts.
Issues: Whether the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder were established for divorce, and whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and despite the lack of a specific statutory ground for divorce based on this, the circumstances warranted the dissolution of the marriage.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the marriage is dissolved.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

Heard Ms. K. Swarna Seshu, learned counsel for the appellant/husband and Mr. Ramesh Babu Peddapalli, learned counsel for the respondent/wife.

2. The present is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’) preferred by the appellant/husband challenging the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad (for short, the ‘Family Court’) in O.P.No.423 of 2007.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Family Court has dismissed a petition filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the ‘Act of 1955’) seeking for divorce on the ground of cruelty and also on the ground that the respondent/wife was suffering from some mental disorder.

4. The brief facts which led to filing of the present appeal are that the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife got married on 02.07.1999 as per the Hindu rites and customs. The appellant/husband and respondent/wife out of their said marriage were blessed with a male child on 20.03.2000. Immediately after birth of the male child it appears that the relationship between the appellant/husband and respondent/ wife got strained and in spite of best efforts made by family elders and family members on repeated rounds of mediation, the relationship between the two could not reconcile and the respondent/wife is said to have left the company of appellant/ husband and went and started staying with her parents since the year 2008. As such, now it is almost sixteen (16) years that the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife have been staying separately without any conjugal relationship.

5. Initially the petition was filed for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act of 1955. Later, it was amended and converted into a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and on the ground of alleged mental disorder of the respondent/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Act of 1955. After conclusion of the pleadings and evidences which were recorded on either side, the Family Court concluded that the appellant/husband has failed to lead sufficient evidences to establish the grounds on which he is seeking relief of divorce and finally the O.P. was dismissed vide the impugned order leading to filing of the present appeal.

6. Today when the matter was heard at length in the presence of counsel representing on either side, there were allegations and counter allegations being leveled by both the sides and both sides have taken a firm stand that it would be difficult now to stay together as husband and wife after so long a period of staying separately for the last sixteen (16) years.

7. The appeal was filed in the year 2013 and since 2013 also it is more than eleven (11) years during which time there were all efforts made, but failed in reunion of the appellant/husband and respondent/wife. The male child born to the appellant/husband and respondent/wife on 20.03.2000 is since grownup and has become an adult; is now staying with the appellant, the father.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed hard upon the behavioral attitude of the respondent/wife and contended that it was literally impossible to cohabit with the respondent/wife. The learned counsel for the appellant had referred to various instances where the respondent/wife is said to have lost her cool and created a hysterical situation and atmosphere in the house and finally prayed that since admittedly for the last sixteen (16) years they have been staying separately and even in spite of efforts and several rounds of mediation, there were no chances of reunion of the appellant/husband and respondent/wife. As such, the marriage has become irretrievable and therefore in the larger interest of both the parties to the dispute, it is prayed that they be given a decree of divorce so that the issues between the two can get settled for all times to come.

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on p