1. Husband sought dissolution of marriage alleging cruelty; Wife sought restitution of conjugal rights; parties have been living separately since allegations of harassment and criminal litigation arose. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 793
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, K. Sujana, JJ.
xxxx - Appellant
Versus
xxxx - Respondent
Family Court Appeal Nos.202 and 229 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2026
Important Points
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the mere filing of a criminal complaint by a spouse does not constitute cruelty.
Subject
Family Law - Matrimonial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 9 - Dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty and Restitution of conjugal rights - Burden of proof - Burden resides on the party alleging cruelty to produce cogent evidence to prove the same (Paras 21, 27) - Mere filing of a criminal complaint for dowry harassment under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act does not amount to cruelty (Para 29).
(B) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Not a statutory ground for granting a decree of divorce - Neither the Family Court nor the appellate court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
Following an arranged marriage and the birth of a female child, the husband sought a decree of divorce alleging cruelty, including claims that the wife suffered from psychological disorders and had filed false criminal cases against him and his family. The wife sought restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that she was subjected to harassment, dowry demands, and physical abuse. The family court dismissed the wife's petition and granted the husband a decree of divorce, citing cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The husband failed to provide any medical evidence or witness testimony to support the allegations of psychological disorders. The court found that the filing of a criminal case by the wife does not constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage. Additionally, the family court's decision to grant a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage was legally flawed as it is not a recognized statutory ground under the Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations of cruelty were substantiated by cogent evidence and whether the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a valid legal basis for granting a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty must be proved through evidence, and the act of filing a criminal complaint is insufficient to establish cruelty. Furthermore, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and a decree cannot be granted on this basis alone.
Result: Decree of divorce set aside; petition for restitution of conjugal rights disposed of with liberty granted to the wife to file a fresh application.
(B) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Not a statutory ground for granting a decree of divorce - Neither the Family Court nor the appellate court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' (Para 31).
Facts of the case:
Following an arranged marriage and the birth of a female child, the husband sought a decree of divorce alleging cruelty, including claims that the wife suffered from psychological disorders and had filed false criminal cases against him and his family. The wife sought restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that she was subjected to harassment, dowry demands, and physical abuse. The family court dismissed the wife's petition and granted the husband a decree of divorce, citing cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Findings of Court:
The husband failed to provide any medical evidence or witness testimony to support the allegations of psychological disorders. The court found that the filing of a criminal case by the wife does not constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage. Additionally, the family court's decision to grant a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage was legally flawed as it is not a recognized statutory ground under the Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations of cruelty were substantiated by cogent evidence and whether the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a valid legal basis for granting a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty must be proved through evidence, and the act of filing a criminal complaint is insufficient to establish cruelty. Furthermore, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and a decree cannot be granted on this basis alone.
Result: Decree of divorce set aside; petition for restitution of conjugal rights disposed of with liberty granted to the wife to file a fresh application.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Husband claimed mental cruelty via false criminal complaints and psychological instability of wife; Wife alleged physical cruelty, demands for dowry, restrictive confinement, and forced abortion attempts. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The court found that the husband failed to produce cogent evidence to prove allegations of mental cruelty or the wife's purported psychological disorders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 32 , 35 )
4. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a valid statutory ground for divorce under the Act, and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute legal cruelty warranting dissolution. (Para 29 , 31 )
5. The divorce decree is set aside; the application for restitution of conjugal rights is disposed of with liberty to file a fresh petition. (Para 38 , 39 )
6. Can a court grant divorce solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act?
No, the court held that neither the Family Court nor the High Court possesses the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as it is not a recognized statutory ground under the Act. (Para 30 , 31 )
7. Does the filing of a criminal complaint under dowry prohibition laws constitute cruelty by the wife?
Mere institution of criminal proceedings such as those under Section 498-A IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act, which subsequently end in acquittal, does not automatically amount to legal cruelty warranting the dissolution of marriage. (Para 28 , 29 )
8. What is the standard of proof required for a husband to allege cruelty based on the wife's mental health issues?
The burden of proof lies squarely on the party alleging mental cruelty or illness (such as being a psycho or hysteria patient); failure to examine witnesses or produce medical evidence renders the allegation unsubstantiated and insufficient to prove cruelty. (Para 19 , 21 , 27 )
JUDGMENT :
K.Lakshman, J.
These two appeals are preferred under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) challenging the Common Order dated 31.01.2017 in O.P.Nos.270 of 2011 and 1888 of 2013 passed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court-cum-III Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.
2. Respondent/husband had filed O.P.No.270 of 2011 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter, “the Act”) against the appellant/wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
3. Appellant/wife had filed O.P.No.1888 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Act against respondent/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
4. As the pleadings in both the petitions are substantially identical, the pleadings in O.P. No. 270 of 2011 are taken into consideration for the purpose of disposing of these appeals.
5. The respondent/husband filed O.P. No. 270 of 2011 against the appellant/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. Their marriage was performed on 05.02.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is an arranged marriage. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 26.11.2009.
6. He contended that, after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent lived together happily at the respondent's residence in Sirpur Kagaznagar for some time. Thereafter, disputes arose between them.
7. According to the respondent, the appellant started harassing and ill-treating him. She allegedly used to leave for her parental home without informing the respondent and would not return unless the respondent or his family members personally went to bring her back. The appellant insisted on living separately from the respondent's parents and wanted to reside at Hyderabad. When the respondent refused, she allegedly became violent and assaulted both the respondent and his mother. It was further alleged that when the respondent's father intervened, the appellant abused him in filthy language.
8. The respondent further alleged that the appellant was suffering from psychological disorders and hysteria. He claimed that she used to threaten him that she would implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases. According to the respondent, the appellant left the matrimonial home along with their child on 15.08.2010. Despite several mediation efforts, the disputes could not be resolved, and the marriage had irretrievably broken down with no possibility of reconciliation due to the appellant's conduct.
9. The respondent further contended that the appellant lodged a criminal complaint before Neredmet Police on false allegations with the intention of harassing him and his family members. He stated that when he and his father went to the appellant's parental home to bring her back, the appellant and her parents insulted them and refused to send her with him. Subsequently, the respondent and his father were arrested in the criminal case lodged by the appellant and were remanded to judicial custody for five days, after which they were released on bail. The respondent's mother and sister obtained anticipatory bail in the said case.
10. The respondent also alleged that the appellant instituted a false dowry harassment case against him and his family members, refused to resume cohabitation, and subsequently filed a petition seeking maintenance.
11. The appellant/wife filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition. She contended that the respondent made defamatory allegations against her by describing her as a psycho and hysteria patient. She further stated that although she attended to all the household responsibilities, she was not permitted to have food in the presence of her husband and in- laws. According to her, the respondent and his family members used to create a scene whenever she attempted to eat in
