SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
M.Upender Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
Suryakala @ Jyothi - Respondent
Family Court Appeal No.47 of 2016
Decided On : 23-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S R SANJEEV KUMAR
For the Respondent: R V INDIRA KUMARI

The court established that the inability to reconcile due to ongoing suspicions and allegations justified the dissolution of marriage despite insufficient evidence of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Appeal against Family Court's order dismissing petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty - Appellant alleged mental cruelty and lack of reconciliation; Respondent countered with allegations of physical violence and infidelity. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 20, 21)

(B) Cruelty - Defined by overall assessment of allegations and evidence - The court underscored the appellant's failure to substantiate claims of cruelty, despite the strained relationship and long separation existing between the parties. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought dissolution of marriage citing mental cruelty; the respondent accused the appellant of infidelity and violence, complicating the relationship post-abortion of pregnancy. (Paras 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The Family Court failed to adequately consider the long-term separation and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, leading to a decision for divorce despite the lack of statutory grounds for irretrievable breakdown. (Paras 21, 27)

Issues: Whether the claims of cruelty were established and whether the continuation of the marriage was tenable in light of the extended separation. (Paras 10, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while cruelty isn’t strictly defined, the overall evidence did not support the appellant's claims, and both parties had demonstrated an ongoing inability to reconcile due to various allegations. The appeal was thus granted based on the established breakdown of the marriage. (Paras 25, 27)

Result: Appeal allowed; marriage dissolved subject to financial settlement obligations. (Para 27)

Table of Content
1. marriage dissolution petition filed citing cruelty. (Para 2 , 3)
2. claims of mutual accusations and allegations of cruelty. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. evidence including witness testimonies presented. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court evaluates evidence and lack of marriage restoration application. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. assessment of cruelty lacks sufficient proof. (Para 20 , 21 , 24)
6. mediation efforts and settlement proposals discussed. (Para 22 , 23)
7. irretrievable breakdown principle discussed in divorce context. (Para 25 , 26)
8. divorce granted and related terms stipulated. (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Heard Sri S.R.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.R.V.Indira Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 14.10.2015 in FCOP No.166 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. The appellant is the husband, and the respondent is the wife.

3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13(i) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty.

4. The appellant contended that his marriage with the appellant was performed on 23.05.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. The said marriage was consummated. The respondent became pregnant and she got aborted. They lived happily for a period of five months. Thereafter, the respondent started harassing him mentally. She developed suspicion over his character. She used to abuse the appellant and his parents in filthy language and also abused him before his colleagues and friends. She has suicidal tendency. She also developed signs of schizophrenia and behaved negatively towards him. Thus, the respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty. He tolerated her with a fond hope that she may change her behavior. There was no change in her behavior.

5. It is further stated that a panchayat was held on 09.09.2012, she was sent along with her parents with all her belongings. The appellant tried his level best to live with the respondent. He became a victim of mental cruelty in the hands of respondent. He lost his patience and could not concentrate on his work. Thus, the appellant filed the aforesaid OP against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

6. Respondent filed counter denying the said allegations. According to the respondent, her parents gave an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- cash and also presented household articles and furniture etc., at the time of marriage to the appellant. The appellant had an illegal affair with one Preethisagar, his colleague. Her parents held panchayat and elders advised the appellant his family members to mend their ways. There was no change in his behavior. The appellant and his parents used to blackmail her and also beat her blue and black. Due to the said continuous physical harassment, she got aborted. Another panchayat was held. Despite advise of the elders, there was no change in the behavior of the appellant. To get rid of the respondent, to continue his illegal relationship with Preethisagar, the appellant filed the aforesaid OP seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

7. To prove the cruelty, the appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and his relative as P.W.2. He filed Ex.A1/marriage card, Ex.A2/marriage photographs, Ex.A3/legal notice dated 13.09.2012, Ex.A4/acknowledgment and Ex.A5/reply notice dated 25.09.2012.

8. To disprove the said cruelty, respondent got examined herself as R.W.1. However, she did not exhibit any documents.

9. On consideration of the said evidence both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 14.10.2015, learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, dismissed the said OP holding that the appellant herein failed to plead and prove cruel acts of the respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top