IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

C.M.A. No.1136 of 2011 Between:

Siliveru Venkateswarlu, S/o.Butchaiah … Appellant VERSUS Siliveru Rambai @ Veerijala Rambai W/o. Venkateswarlu.

Respondent ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 08.10.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ___________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J * THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + C.M.A. No.1136 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

%Dated 08.10.2025 # Between:

Siliveru Venkateswarlu, S/o.Butchaiah … Appellant VERSUS Siliveru Rambai @ Veerijala Rambai W/o. Venkateswarlu.

Respondent ! Counsel for Appellant : Mr.G.Sundaresan ^ Counsel for Respondent : Mr.Praveen Kumar Veerjala.

< GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1.(2016) 9 SCC 455 2. (2006) 4 SCC 558 3. (2013) 5 SCC 226

4. 2023 (6) ALD 100 (SC)

5. (2007) 4 SCC 511 6. (2015) 11 SCC 539 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR C.M.A. No.1136 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar The present CMA is filed by the unsuccessful appellant/husband aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet vide orders passed in O.P.No.43 of 2008 dated 24.06.2011, which is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) holding that the appellant is not entitled for any relief of divorce and the petition for divorce is dismissed.

2. The facts leading to file O.P.No.43 of 2008 before the learned Trial Court are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was performed on 21.09.1984 before the Registrar Office at Hyderabad and that the appellant belongs to B.C. Community whereas the respondent belongs to S.C. Community. The appellant contended that at the time of marriage, the appellant being the final year student of Degree college, followed the respondent who was posted as village assistant in Tahsildar Office, kodad. Both the appellant and respondent started their life in a small room at Kodad. The parents of the appellant forced him to shun the respondent, who is S.C. community lady, but due to love and affection, the appellant refused to do so and once again ceremonial marriage was performed between the appellant and respondent on 05.10.1984 in a Temple at Ramasamudram of Munagala village and Mandal. Pursuant to the marriage, the respondent/wife gave birth to a male child on 31.10.1985. Thereafter, differences arose between the parties. It was contended that the respondent started harassing the appellant by attributing illegal contacts with known persons who used to come to the appellant frequently and caused mental agony to the appellant.However, he suffered the same with a fond hope that the respondent would change her attitude, but the same has become futile. In the meanwhile, the appellant completed his LL.B. course and started practicing as an Advocate at Kodad. On the other hand, the respondent/wife was also appointed as Revenue Inspector and working in the Mandal Revenue Office, Kodad.

3. It is further contended that various incidents including an attempt to kill the appellant on 28.04.2008, for which a case vide Cr.No.86/2008 under Section 342, 307 r/w 34 IPC by P.S.,Kodad Town and also another Cr.No.90/2008 under Section 498-A IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered against the appellant and his family members.

4. It was also contended that the respondent/wife has taken away the gold ornaments worth Rs.3,50,000/- and sarees worth Rs.50,000/- and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-, which have been purchased out of the earnings of the appellant out of practice as an Advocate. It was also contended that the r