Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1620

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX – Appellant
Versus
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX – Respondent
Family Court Appeal No. 122 of 2015
Decided On : 24-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRIKANTHA CHARI
For the Respondent: N.SRIDHAR REDDY

A marriage may be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion when evidence shows a complete breakdown of the marital relationship, without any intention for reconciliation.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) - Divorce proceedings - Dissolution of marriage granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion - Appellant denied allegations; claim of desertion contested - Court observed lack of cohabitation and breakdown of marriage - Respondent's justification for divorce upheld based on evidence of separation and animosity - No possibility of reconciliation evident, leading to divorce confirmation. (Paras 26, 42, 46)

(B) Intention for Continuation of Marriage - The absence of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights indicates no intention to reconcile - Both parties are employed and financially independent. (Paras 28, 45)

(C) Maintenance for Child - A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- awarded for daughter's maintenance, considering her education in USA, as final settlement. (Paras 46, 47)

Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the wife challenging the Family Court's order granting divorce to the husband, who alleged cruelty and desertion since May 2003, while the wife refuted these claims and countered with her allegations of harassment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that both parties had been living separately for over 20 years with no intention of reconciliation, indicating an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, leading to the dissolution of the marriage and granting of maintenance for the daughter.

Issues: The main issues included the justification for divorce based on allegations of cruelty and desertion, and determination of maintenance for the child.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a marriage can cease to exist beyond repair, affirming that no reconciliation was feasible, thereby granting the divorce and maintenance award.

Result: Appeal dismissed, and divorce decree upheld with maintenance award.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenging divorce decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of cruelty and desertion. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 11)
3. evidence presented by both parties. (Para 12 , 13 , 19)
4. human behavior and cruelty definition. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
5. irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (Para 25 , 26)
6. duration of separation links to dissolution. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
7. complaints and allegations impact on relationship. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. consideration of evidence and its implications. (Para 35 , 36)
9. lack of possibility for reconciliation. (Para 41 , 42)
10. child's maintenance awarded. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. Heard Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri Srikantha Chari, learned counsel for the Appellant/wife and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy learned counsel for the respondent/husband.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.03.2015 in OP No.1006 of 2008 (old OP No.83 of 2006) passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District granting decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage dated 06.08.2000.

3. The appellant is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The Respondent - husband filed the aforesaid OP No.1006 of 2008 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the appellant – wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion contending as follows:-

i. His marriage with the appellant was performed on 06.08.2000 as per Hindu rites and customs.

ii. It was an arranged marriage, and they were blessed with a female child on 02.01.2004.

iii. The appellant has joined the Respondent for a period of one month immediately after marriage at Rajampeta and later appellant came back to Hyderabad and never visited him at Rajampeta.

iv. The appellant refused to join the respondent despite he bought a flat near to the appellant parents’ house.

v. Due to elders intervention, she joined the Respondent during the month of March, 2003 and again she left the respondent during May, 2003.

vi. The respondent was not informed the birth of the child and he was not permitted to see the appellant and child.

vii. The appellant has deserted the respondent from May, 2003 to till date i.e. more than two years eight months without any plausible reason.

viii. Appellant has filed false cases against the respondent, his sister and brother-in-law for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A, 420, 499, 304-A and 501 of IPC. The Investigating Officer could not find any cogent evidences and has filed charge sheet only under Section 4 98-A of IPC, read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

ix. The appellant even filed a false case against the respondent alleging that he tried to kidnap his own daughter but the same was not made out.

x. The appellant has submitted a petition with the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department, in which respondent is working as an employee, that he is evading the arrest in crime registered for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and requested to suspend the respondent from services. She also submitted similar petition to Joint Director (Animal Husbandry) that respondent sister and her husband are evading arrest under section 498-A of IPC.

xi. The appellant has allegedly repeated that younger sister of respondent is “mentally ill, mentally sick and “psychzoprehnic” and abused the respondent sister’s state of mind.

4. The appellant herein filed counter, denying the claim of the respondent, contending as follows:-

i. After marriage on 06.08.2000, the appellant lived with the Respondent at Rajampet and Hyderabad because of her employment, but not deserted the respondent.

ii. The respondent and his sister namely Dakshayani harassed him by demanding additional dowry and gold.

iii. The Respondent’s sister Dakshayani, her husband Mr. Prakash, and other relatives interfered and created disputes between them to separate her from the respondent.

iv. They