The High Court · 2025

JUDGMENT: @er Hon'ble Sri Justice Namauarapu Rajeshuar Rao) Heard Smt. K. Sridevi, learned counsel appea'ring for the appellant and Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act assailing the order dated 30'08'20O7 passed by the learned II Additiona-l Senior Civil Judge, R'R' District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in O.P'No 315 of 2OO4 filed under Section 1 3 ( 1) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.

3. Vide the said order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/husband. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. I 2

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner married the respondent on 03.05.1990 as per the Hindu Customs ald Rites. After the marriage, they both started living together in the petitioner's father,s own house at H.No. 19-115, Gautham Nagar, Matkajgiri, Hyderabad, along with the parents ald brothers of the petitioner, which is a joint family. The petitioner is working as an Enquiry_cum_ Reservation Clerk at South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The respondent's parents live at Marredpally, Secunderabad, and the respondent used to visit her parents, house very frequently and used to stay there for weeks together without zrny concern for the petitioner right from the beginning of marital life. 5(i) The petitioner was blessed with a daughter by name Sindhu Bharathi on 26-05 1991. After the birth of Sindhu Bharathi, the respondent started demanding the petitioner's separation from the petitioner's parents and to live in a separate house, but the petitioner did not agree to break down the joint family, he being the eldest son. The respondent left the home in May, 1992, and never returned, in spite of the petitioner's visit to their house, requesting her to join. The respondent used to provoke the petitioner by saying that he is a parasite on his pa-rents and, does not have the guts to be independent and that he does not have self-respect and dignity. So, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 29.O9.1993 calling upon the respondent to join him along with the child. Instead of complying with the notice, the respondent got issued a reply notice dated

11.10.1993, demanding a separate house to join back with all false allegations. 5(ii) The attempts made by the petitioner's Advocates of the in October 1993 for compromise failed since the respondent was not even willing to live in a separate house near to the house of petitioner's parents. The relationship got further badly strained by the indifferent attitude shown by the respondent when the father of the petitioner died in June 1994. Though the respondent was informed, she did not bother to visit and console the petitioner. She did not even turn up on the 3.a and l OtL day ceremony despite several requests made by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner's father felt very bad when the respondent avoided attending the marriage of the petitioner's younger sister in 1 4 February 1993. In July 1994, the petitioner visited the respondent's house and requested her to join him in a sepa-rate house, but she bluntly refused and insulted the petitioner for not getting a share in the property before the death of the petitioner's father. The respondent showed the utmost cruelt5r and made the life of the petitioner miserable by creating a menta-l torture. The respondent is responsible for all the disturbances in the life of the petitioner ald his family members. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner underwent the humiliation of loneliness and insult. At this point, a friendship happened between the petitioner and one lady by name Mrs. Aruna, who is a divorcee. Due to their physical relationship, Mrs. Aruna gave birth to a daughter named Sai Pranathi. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and behaved cruelly with the petitioner, In view of the above said circumstances, the petitioner was forced to file the present petition.

6. The respondent filed a counter before the trial Court stating that the petitioner admittedly developed illegal 5 intimacy with a lady by name Mrs. Aruna and begot a child, namely Sai Pranathi, and started neglecting the respondent and her children. The petitioner having committed so many wrongs within the meaning of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is not entitled to arry relief against this respondent. The respondent denied that she used to visit her parents' house very frequently and used to stay for weeks u,ithout any concern for the petitioner. The petitioner is not concerned about his family, and never used to take care of the family. The petitioner has bad habits and used to come only late at nights. Later, the respondent came to kno,,r, that he developed an illegitimate relationship with a woman ca11ed Aruna and the reason behind his late return to home neglecttng his wife and children is due to such an illegitimate relationship. She further denied that she demanded for separation from the petitioner's parents and live in a separate house and that she never left home in May 1992 ar.d never returned in spite of the petitioner's request. All the allegations made by the petitioner are false. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition. I 1 .''xr; #iff x 6 7 . On considering the material facts and evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the petition Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petrtloner.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that the trial court ought to have granted divorce on the basis of the allegations made against the appellant herein by the respondent in her pleadings. The respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, his mother, his sister and Aruna under Section 498-A and 494 IPC on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, East & North, Ralga Reddy arrd the trial Court failed to see that the respondent is bent upon sending the petitioner to prison on one or other pretext and proceedings relating to maintenance. The Trial Court ought to have noted the respondent's conduct after filing the O.P. for divorce and M.C. by the respondent, which entitled the petitioner to get divorce on the grounds of cruelty 7 a

9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Honble Supreme Court: i) In the case of K. Sriniuas Vs. K. Sunitql and ii) In the case of Ro,ni No,rrlsimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Raniz Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition, which requires no interference from this Court ald he relied upon the judgment of the Honlcle Supreme Court, in the CASC of Raj Talreja Vs. Katita Talrejas (Civil Appeal No.10719 of 2013). Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

11. The un-disputed facts of the case are that the petitioner married the respondent on 03.05.1990 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, ald during the vr,edlock, a grrl, '(zora) ro scc:+ ' (zozq ta scc zql t valtu/sc/oag:/zorz .,. ,- .:].**SM I,i 8 namely Sindhu Bharathi, was born on 26.O5.1991 ald a Ir male child, namely Sai Charan, was born on 31.10.i995 There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner developed illegal intimacy with one Mrs. Aruna, and out of the said intimacy, the said Aruna gave birth to a child named as Sai Pranathi

12. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has narrated several instances in the petition for making a ground of cruelty for the dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the respondent used to go to her parents'house frequently, and she used to stay for many days without the petitioner's consent. However, the petitioner has not established the said fact by examining any person. Except for the petitioner's interested testimony, no other material is available on record for establishing the various acts done by the respondent for constituting the cruelty. The petitioner alleged that he got issued a legal notice to the respondent calling her to join him, but she gave a reply notice, demanding for a separate house to join the petitioner. But i) 9 the respondent has disputed issuing any such reply notice, and the petitioner has not filed the reply notice. The petitioner has been contending that as the respondent left his society, he developed friendship with Aruna, which ultimately lead to physical cohabitation with her and out of the said cohabitation, the said Aruna give birth to a daughter by name Sai Pranathi

13. The petitioner also contended that the respondent did not even attend the death ceremony of his father, who died on 17 .06.1994. However, the respondent has been contending that she participated in the death ceremony of the petitioner's father. When the respondent denies such allegations, the petitioner ought to have examined any of his relatives to establish that the respondent did not attend the death ceremony of the petitioner's father. Subsequently, the respondent joined the petitioner and again, the respondent gave birth to a male chiid on 31.10.i995. The said circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner has condoned any acts done by the respondent, which constitutes cruelty by way of cohabitating with her. 10

14. The petitioner also contended that the sister of the (., petitioner by name Devaki Sudha got employment as a teacher, '*,hereas the respondent could not get employment even though she completed B.Ed., coufse, and so the respondent became jealous and used to threaten the said Devaki Sudha, that she would implicate her in a crimina_l case, so that she would lose herjob. The respondent denies all these allegations. However, the petitioner has not examined his sister, Devaki Sudha, to establish that the respondent threatened her at any time, as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner did not explain for non examination of his sister Devaki Sudha.

15. The petitioner, in his petition averred that his father felt very bad when the respondent avoided attending the marriage of his sister. He worried very much about the disgusted marriage life of the petitioner and immediately, he succumbed to those tensions ald drama on 17.06.1994. But in the cross-examination, the petitioner stated that his father was no longer alive on the date of his younger sister's marriage and that he and the respondent fulfilled all j J 11 ,) formalities of Kanyadhanam in his sister's marriage. So it is clear that the petitioner has taken a fa-lse plea in the petition and he has gone to the extent of blaming the respondent for the death of the petitioner's father.

16. Admittedly, even as per the petitioner's version, the respondent left his society only in the month of May, 2OO2. The marriage of the parties took place in the year 1990. So, they iived as wife and husband for a period of 12 years, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has an extramarital relationship with one Aruna. The parties are having two children. Disputes took place between the parties only due to the adulterous relationship developed by the petitioner with one Aruna. The respondent in her affidavit clearly and categorically stated that still she is ready to live with the petitioner along with her children to lead happy marital life, if the petitioner changes his adamant behaviour and shows love and aifection towards her and her children and disconnect the il1ega1 intimacy with the said Aruna, So, it is clear that the respondent still warts to join the petitioner's company to lead a marital life ...*-.-..*&l L2 .t t 17 . Learned counsel for the appeilant submitted that filing of a false crirninal complaint against the husbarrd and his family members under Section 498-A IPC constitutes matrimonial cruelty, and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Srinittas (1"t supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "4. ln the cose in hand, leorned counsel for the Respondent-Wife hos vehemently contended thot it is not possible to lobel the wife's criminol comploint detoiled obove os o folse or o vindictive oction. ln other words, the ocquittol of the Appellont ond his fomily members in the criminol comploint does not by itself, outomoticolly ond justifiobly, leod to the conclusion thdt the comploint wos folse; thot only one comploint wos preferred by the Respondent-Wife, whereos, in contradistinction, in K.Srinivds Roo d series of comploints by the wife hod been preferred. The argument wos premised on the overment thot the investigdtion moy hove been Joulty or the prosecution moy hove been so coreless os to leod to the ocquittol, but the ocquittol would not dlwoys indicote that the Comploinont hod intentionolly filed o folse cose. Whot should be kept in perspective, it is reosonobly argued, thot the Comploinont is not the controlling conductor in this Orchestro, but only one of the musicions who must deliver her rendition os and when ond how she is colled upon to do. Secondly, occording to the leorned counsel, the position would hove been oppreciobly different if a specific finding regording the falsity of the criminol comploint wos returned, or if the Comploinont or o witness on her behoff hod committed perjury or hod recorded o controdictory or incredible testimony. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife stotes thot neither possibility hos manifested itself here ond, therefore, it would be unfoir to the Respondent-Wife to conclude thot she hod exhibited such cruelty towords the Appellont ond her inJows thot would justify the dissolution of her morrioge." 13 In the above case, a series of complaints by the wife had been preferred. Whereas in the present case, there are no series of complaints by the respondent. However, against the judgment in C.C. No.1481 of 2005, the respondent preferred al appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2013, which was also dismissed. Mere dismissal of a criminal case against the petitioner, does not entitle him to get a divorce on that ground only. The Court also has to look into other aspects. The petitioner has not established a single piece of evidence with regard to his wife's cruelty and her adamant mentality. As such, the said judgment is not considered.

18. Learned counsel for the appeliant submitted that mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty, but, when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, leveled by wife against husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on husband, particularly, when serious allegations were made. He relied upon Rcni Narasimha Sastry (2-a supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: , .,* *rfA . - -.,.2 Hifl C' 1,4 "13. In the present case lhe prosecution is launched b)t the respondent against the appcllant undcr Scction 498-,4 of IPC making serious alLegations in vthich the appellant hod to undergo lrial vthich ultimately resulted in his acquittul. In the prosecution under Section 498-,1 oJ IPC not only acquittal has been recorded bul observations have been ntade that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each olher. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree o/ divorce on lhe tfound oJ cruelty has been eslablished. Ilith regard to proceeding initiated by respondent under Scction J98-A of IPC, the High Court made following observotion in paragraph I 4:

14.....Merely becouse the respondent hds sought for mointenonce or hos filed o comploint ogoinst the petitioner for the offence punishoble under Section 498-A of lPC, they connot be soid to be volid grounds for holding thot such o recourse odopted by the respondent omounts to cruelty." The above obsen,otion of the Iligh Cout't cdnnot be approved. It is true that il is open for anvone to fle complaint or lodge prosecution /or redressal Jitr his or har grievances und lodge a first information report lor an olJbnce aln and mere bdging of complaint or FIR cannol ipso.fircto be treoted us cruelty. But vlrcn a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquilled of the allagation of olfence under Secrion J98-.1 of IPC, levelled by the v' i,fe againsl the husband, it cannol be accepted lhol no crttelty htts meted on lhe husband. As per pleadings before u.s, after parties lruving been married on 11.08.2005, that, Lived together only l8 months and thereat'ter they are separalely ltvingfor more than a decade now." In the above case, it is observed that after the parties married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only for 18 months, and thereafter, they were separately living for more than a decade. Whereas in the present case, the marriage of the parties took place in the year 1990. So, they lived as wife ald hustrand for a period of 12 years, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has an extrama-rita1 relationship with one 15 Aruna. The parties are having two children. Disputes took piace between the parties only due to the adulterous relationship developed by the petitioner with one Aruna. As such, the facts in the above judgment are. differ to those of the present case. Hence, the same is not applicabie to the case on hand

19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that cruelty carr never be defined rn.ith exactitude arrd it will depend upon the facts and circumstar-rces of each case ar-ld mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. After trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Talreja (3,a supra) wherein it was held as under: "10. Cruelty can neyer be defined \L,ith exactitude. Ilhat is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances oJ each case. ln lhe present case, J'rom the facts naffated aboNe, it is apparent that lhe wife made reckless, defamatory and folse accusalions against her husbund, his family members and colleagues, which would de.finitely have the efect of kxering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing ol complaints i.s not cruelly, i,f there are justifiable reasons to .file the I 16 $ complainls. Merely because no action is taken on lhe complainl or afler lrial lhe accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusalions of the wife as cruelly within the meaning of the Hindu l[arriuge Acl 1955 (or short 'lhe tlct'). Ilowever. if it is found that the allegolions are patently false, then there can be no manner o;f doubt that the soid conduct of a spouse levellingfalse occusations ugoinst the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the presenl case, all lhe allegations were found to be false. Later, she fled anolher compkrint ailcging lhat her husband along with sonte olher persons had trespassed inlo her house and assaulled her. The police found, on invesligotion, lhat not only was the complaint Jalse but also lhe injuries v'ere sef inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under Section 182 of IPC.

12. Though we have held that the acts of the u,ife in filing false complaints againsl lhe husband mottnls lo cuelty, we are, however, not obLivious lo lhe requirements of the wife to have a decent house where sha can live. Her son and daughter-in)atv 'l'herefore, some may not continue to live v'ith her -forever. permonenl orrangement has b bc made for har alimory and residence. Keeping in tiew the stotus oJ the parties, we dit'ccl that the husband shall pa-v to the vi.fe a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ (Rupees Fifty Lakhs onlyl as one timc permanent alimony and she will not claim any lurlher amounl ut anv later stage. l'his amount be paid within tlree months from loday. We furlher diract lhal the wife shall conlinue to live in the house v'hich belongs to the mother oJ'the lrusband till the husband prnvides her a flat of simikrr size in a similar localitlt. ["or thi.s purpose, the husband is directed lo ensure thal a flat oJ the value up n) Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees (he Crore Only) be lransferred in the name of his wiJb and Lill it is 1u'ovidetl, she shall conlinue b live in the futuse in vhich she irj residing ol prcsent. " In the case on hand, the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner is dismissed. However, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case that, after trial, if the accused is acquitted, it may not be a ground to treat slrch accusations of the wife as cruelty. 17

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the appellant/petitioner has not made out any ground for gralt of decree of dissolution of marriage on the grounds as mentioned in Section 13(1) of Hindu Marri4ge Act

21. Accordingly, the Civit Miscellaneous Appeal 1S dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if ary, shall stand closed i/TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL q:]"=o,.r"11 i aa"r,o* oFFtcER \ ,l U One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P'Sam Koshy (F6r His LordshiPs kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice NamavarSpu Rajeshwar Rao (For His LordshiPs kind Perusal) To,

1. The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' Hyderabad 2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 4-. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of i l Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

5. .One CC to Ms. S Vani, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri D Madhava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies M. ADK'DL ---a 't' {'. HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 , , JUDGMENT+DECREE CMA.No.940 of 2007 \ 1 t oY /, Z- ii- \ *c)ry S"\ \ (' ,..... 2 DRAFTS -.). '/ DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS E iAJ 4tA \,\l16 IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 940 OF 2007 Between: T. Rajender, S/o.Late Sree Ramachandran, Occ: ECRC SC Railways, Secunderabad FJo. H.No.19-115, Gauthamnagar, Malakalgiri Hyderabad- 500 047. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND Smt. T. Kavitha Rani, W/o.T. Rajender, Occ: Teacher in Keys High School, Secunderabad 19-1 1 5, Gauthamnagar, Malakalgiri, Hyderabad- 500 047. ...Respondent Appeal under Section 28 of Hindu marriage Act against the Judgment and decree made in O.P.No.315 oI 20Q4 dated 30-08-2007 on the file of the court of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. S Vani, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri D Madhava Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the CMA be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies N- : HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 DECREE CMA.No.940 of 2007 I Ac,v c-. N s DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 t{\ \N