*THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND *THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.494 OF 2025 % 24-04-2026 # Rachana Reddy Cycum …Appellant vs.

$ Adala Damodhar Reddy … Respondent !Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. S.Nagesh Reddy ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel Representing Mr. Dhananjaya Naidu Kolla Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred

1. (2014) 1 SCC 225

2. 2007-4-L.W.460

3. 2008 SCC Online Del 371 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD * * *

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.494 OF 2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24.04.2026 Between:

Rachana Reddy Cycum …..Appellant AND Adala Damodhar Reddy …..Respondent Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Vishweswara Nikhil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 in I.A.No.138 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.151 of 2024, whereby the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (‘Trial Court’) allowed an Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by the respondent-husband for ad interim injunction restraining the appellant-wife coming anywhere near him or to his house and also to his workplace at Greenpark Hotel and Resorts, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, during the pendency of FCOP.

2. The appellant herein is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The parties are being referred to as ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ for ease of understanding.

3. The respondent husband filed FCOP No.151 of 2024 under section 13(1)(ia)(iii) read with section 27 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘1955 Act’) for dissolution of marriage with the appellant wife on the ground of cruelty i.e., the wife was of unsound mind and suffering from mental disorder. The husband also sought for return of Rs.60,00,000/- paid to the wife and her parents by way of loan.

4. The IA filed by the husband i.e., I.A.No.138 of 2024 was premised on the grounds that the wife had issues with anger management and displayed psychopathic behaviour and hysteria.

The husband also stated that the wife made his life miserable through persistent nagging and complaints. The husband relied on several incidents occurring from the time of marriage upto September, 2023 to demonstrate the wife’s anger issues including instances of alleged physical assault.

5. The Trial Court allowed the IA on 08.09.2025 restraining the wife from going near the husband, his house or his work place during the pendency of the Divorce Petition/FCOP No.151 of 2024. The reason given by the Trial Court in allowing the IA was that the wife suffers from mental disorder and behaves abnormally in front of the husband’s family members. We will deal with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for granting the said relief in greater detail in later paragraphs of this judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the wife submits that the Trial Court erred in giving undue importance to daily incidents as alleged by the husband and concluding that the wife was suffering from a mental disorder. Counsel also argues that the Trial Court arrived at certain findings without any medical records to corroborate such findings. It is also submitted that the impugned order defeats the intent of the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court on 04.11.2024 in W.P.No.28492 of 2024. Counsel further submits that the Trial Court failed to give weightage to the evidence relied upon by the wife.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband stresses on the fact of the parties lived together as a married couple only for a short duration of 13 months. Senior Counsel places certain incidents, including that of 2