The High Court · 2025

Thereafter, differences arose between the parties. It r.r'as contended that the respondent started harassing the appellant by attributing illegal contacts with known persons rvho used to come to the apl)ellant freque'ntl], and caused mental agony to the appellant. However, he su f-fered the same with a fond hope that the respondent would change her anirude. l--'ut the same has become futile. In the meanwhile. the appc'llant completed his Lt..B course and started practicing as an Advocate at Kodld. On the other hand, the respondent/wife was also appointed as Rer enuc Inspector and u,orking in the Mandal Revenue Oftlce. Kodad.

3. It is further contended that various incidents including an attempt to kitl the appellant on 28.04.2008. fc.rr rvhich a casc vide Cr.No.86/2008 under Section 342,307 r/w 34 IPC by P.S.,Kodad Jou,n and aiso another Cr.No.90/2008 under Section 498-A IPC and 3( I )(X ) of SCIST (POA) Act was registered against the appellant and his farnill rncmbers t) J

1. lt rvas also contended that the respondent/wife h:.r taken away the gold ornarnents *'trrth Rs.i,50,000/- and sarees worth I s.50,000/- and houschold articles worth Rs.50,000/-, which have been Iurchased out of the earnings ot thc appellant out 01'practice as an Advoc rte. lt was also contcnded that tht r-espondent/wile also got encashed the E )Rs

5. Apart fiom the abovc contentions, there are ser',: al other factual pleadings placed beibre the Trial Court. which culminatc(l rim to approach the trial Court by rvav ol'filing O.P. i\o.43 of 2008 under I ection l3(lXia) of thc Act

6. On the other hanci, the respondent/r.vife filed col'rter before the leamecl '['rial Cour. denying the averments made by the z opellant herein, and submitting that the appellant belongs to B.C. Commur ity rvhereas she belongs to S.C. community and that their marriage is : Iove marriage. 1'he respondent dcnied the allegation of the appellant thlrt the respondent harasscd the appelll.rnt by making false allegations and ril ributing illegal contacts with other worlan. The respondent contended th rt the appellant himself harassed her both mentally and physicaliy and user to abuse her in filthv langr.rage and ill-treat her as she belongs to S.C. (i, rnrnunitv iady. The respondent contended that she tolerated all the hurnilia ions rneted out to her rvith hope that the appellant would rnend himself one dev or the other, but there was no change

7. The respondent furthel contcnded that the appellant conrpleted his I-l-.B. course with the amount providcd by the respondent tiorn her salarv earnings only, and that the respondent also constructe<i a housc out o1'her eamings, by lifting chit arnor-rnt and also h1'o',-rtaining loan lronr rhe Rank t(. 1'hc respondent denied various allegatit'lt- lereleiJ against irer by the appeiiant, and cor-rtended that in t'act thc appeliarri irrrnseiicauscci cru--itv to the respondent b,v developing illicit contacts rr ith one lariy -bv M.Vani, Wio.Prasad, R/o.Kodad. and that thc appeilant ili-treateci the respondent and their son, and used to abuse thenr in t.iithy language. Thc respondenuwife further contended that rlhen shc ouestioned about the appellant about his illegal intimacy ivith the said Vani, the appellant used to iurther harass her-

9. The respondent/wife further contended that she got promotion as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2006 and her sor.r cornpletcd i\4.B.B.S. and intending to pursue higher education at I lyderabad. Ihe respondent denied the allegation of attack on appellant anci tried to k ill hinr ,;l

10. The respondent lurther contends that since th: appellant is not having sutlicicni financial income out of the practice. ris purchasing of valuable properties does not arise, and on the othr - hand. she has contribuied hel saian tou.ards purchase of the said articlr ; I l. Finally, the respondenuwife contends that being a r :sponsible Hindu wile she has pertbnnod all her legitrmate duties tou a ds the appellant whereas the appellant having developed contacts u.i h another lady, completclv neglected her anri their son. Only with a \.lw to harass the respondent. the appellant instituted the O.p. with fal e and frivolous allegations. ]-hereibre. she urged the learned rrial CoL t ro dismiss the o.P.

12. Basing rrn the above prleadings, the leamed Trial r lourt fiamed the following poinr lirr consideration: lll*.thtr tht' ptritictner is entltled .[or tlitorct, / on the rtslrn t,nt rlt thc gnturul oicruelty'/" I 3. For establishing the case, the appellant examined I imself as p.W. I and his sister Ch.Padnt, *,'as examined as P.W.2 and oth: wilnesses were examined as P.ws.-l to 5. Exs.A- t to A-1 I were marketl :n hehalf of the appeilanr. On bchaif olrh. respondent, she examined her; lf as R.W.l and 6 her son Srikanth as R.W.2 and other witnesses were examined as R.Ws.3 and 4. Exs.B-1 and B-2 as well as Ex.X-l which is a settlement deed dated

12.07.1008 weremarked

14. Sri G.Sundaresan, learned counsel ior the appellant vehementlv contcnded that the respondentiwife repeatedll' accused the appellant tbr extra marital life r,r'ith a woman named lr4.Vani without any' proof. including in iront of his clients, thereby humiliating the appellant and causing mental cruclty. It is further contended that a complaint rvas also given b1'the wife in Cr.No.90i200ti (F:r.A-l) and complaint in DV(' No.7/2008 (Ex.A3) accusing the appellant of extra marital Iife and made statement that the appeilanVhusband as wontaniz:r, boozer and gambler, and making such unfounded, indecentidel'amatoil a)legations against thc' appellant in pleadings and filing complaints and staging dhama in fiont of C.l. ol-fice and in the house of appellant arnoLrnts to causing urental crucitl

15. Learned counsel 1br the appellarlt fufther contended that even in thc cross-cxamination of R.W.1, the respondent clearly adrnitted that she filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the appellant and his brothers and sisters as counter-blast to the complaint giren by'the appellant in Cr.No.86i2008. ln this req.ard, lcarned ,-.} counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of thc lon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. K.Meenal , wherein at page No. I () ., it was held that making f-alse, unfirundi'd and unsubstanliated allegatior I of ertra marital life amcunts ro c luelt; ,

16. l,eamed cour-rsc] fbr the appeilant further cor:ended that the respondent by nrisusing her position and lamily witl' the support of brothers. llled falsr: criminal case againsl the appellant arr his brothers and sister in Exs.A--l and r\-3. ircrvever'. the criminal Co nt acquitted the appellant and his brother and sister vide judgment dt.O4.C ).2012 passed in S.C.i.r-o.57 ot l0 I 0 on the tile of the Speciai Sessions J rdge fbr trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases at Nalgonda, w'hich was subsequt'r tly confirmed in Appeal

17. Leamed counsel lor the appellant further cor ended that the respondent'wife and her t'amily members and R.W.4 stage I dhama in front ofappellant's hotrse and police station pressurizing arresr rf appellant, and that staging a cihama rrr public certainly q,ould lower tlr, prestige, status and aliect professional carecr of the appellant being ru Advocate. ln '(201(r) 9 SC('.15-5 E \ supportofhiscontention,hereliedonthejurignrentofthellon'ble Supreme Court in Nat'een Kohti Vs. NeeluKohti! '

18. Learned counsel tbr the appellant further vehetnetrtly contended that the leamed l'rial Court wrongly believed the evidence ol' R.W' l and R.W.2, failed to appreciate that these false accusations of extra marital affairs, repeated suspicion and humiliation beforc colleagues and clients constitute rnental crueit-Y under Section 1l( l)(ia) oi the '4'ct' 19, lt !s turther contended thar thc lealned rliat Court has crroneousll' not considered Lx.A-S tlie cornplairlt gi"'cn b1' tile appellant against thc respontlent and her brother tbr attacking the appellant and trying to occupy' the house. ancl that the leamed Trial Court gave undue reliance on Ex'X-1 (allegec setllernent deed) which was nol pleaciect nor proved in accordance u,ith iau.. and it rvas fabricated. He thcrefore contended that the evidencc ol R.W.-l and Er.X- I cannot be accepted.

20. Learned counsel for the appc'llant further contended that the learned Trial court f-ailed to appreciate the evidence of R.w.4, u'ho in his cross- examination admitted that he also panicipated in the I)hama u'hich was organized by the respondent ibr arrest of appettant atrci r"acatc the house' 'i2oor,) + scc ::s 9 Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the deci ion in K.Srinvias Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa't. 2l . Leamed courrsei tbr the appeilant relied upr n a decision in Roopasoni Vs. Komalnaroytnson/ to contend thar :he marriage has irretrievably Lrroken dorvn and it is beyond repair i rd parties living separatelv and on ly formal decree of divorce is to be .ranted;, alt these grounds lnake our a case lbr granrinp. divorce on the 1;r:und of marriage having irretrieva bl1, broken down.

22. Learned counsel for the appcllant f,nallv prays to ret aside the order passed by the leamed Trial Court and allow the Appr al by granting a decree of divorce

23. On the other hand, Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, ie rrned counsel for the respondent vehementlv contended tliat the leametl "rial Court, upon appreciation of the orai and documentan' evidence, has ightly dismissed the OP filed for dissolution of marriase. and that the ord: under challenge is well reasoned, based on lacts and iaw, and does rot cail for anv interference by this Court '(2013) 5 SCC 126 ,202j (6) AI_D I 00 {S(') t0

24. Learned counsel for the respondent turther submitted that the appeltant has distorted therecord in order to project a false casc' and that the respondent on the contrary' has come fon;vard with consistent and truthful evidence q,hich is duly corroborated by witnesses and circumstances, which clearly demonstrates that the appellant has uo justifiable cause oi action for securing a decree of divorce'

25. I-eamed counsel ior the respondent further contended that the leamed 'l'rial Court meticulously examined the testimony of all the witnesses, including those produced by the appellant himself' and found that the allegations are either contradiciory or ur-rreliable' and as such' the findings recorded are all in accordance with law and based on sound appreciation o! ." idencc.

26. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the leamedTrial Court rightly discarded the testimony of P'Ws'2 to 5 as their depositions lacked credibility and did not inspire confidence' that P'W'2' who is none other than the sistcr of appellant, gave contradictory statements even r,r,ith regard to her relationship with the appellant' thereby undermining her reliabil itY.

27. Leamed counsel for the respondent contended t rat evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 u as Ibund to be hearsav and inconsis t nt- since P.W.3 candidly adrnitred that he had no personal knowledgc ol' Ie alleged acts of cruelty and was only repeating what the appellant tolc IM Similarly, P.W.4, in an attempt to lend false rveight to his evidr'r ce, went to the extent 01'misrepresenting his occupation as a Govemmen - feacher when in t-act he u,as a Junior Assistant. Thus. the learrred Trial t rurt rightll,held disbelier ed their cr idcnce.

28. Leamed counscl for the respondent further co I ended that the learned Trial Court rightly held that fiting ol crimir i I cases by the respondent including under Section 498-4 IPC and Si tST (PoA) Act cannot b-v' itself amount to cruelty, and ti.at in matrirno r al disputes, the law recosnizes that where one spouse is subjecred to h: -assment or ill- treatment, approaching lawtul authoritie s tbr protecl.io, r is a legitimate remedy. Unless it is concluded by the Courts and thev r:cord a finding that such complaints rvere f-alse, liivolous, or rnalicious. t te mere lact of filing of cases carutot be twisted into a ground of crueh... and that it is a right avaiiable to a victim to urge the Courts rvhen she is be ng subjected to domestic violence. It is further contended that il the c I rtention in this i2 regard is accepted, it would set a dangerous precedent w'hereby any spouse who seeks iegal recourse for protection from harassment could be penalized by having such actions treated as cruelty. The learrred 'lrial Court adopted the correct legal position in holding that respondent's act of filing criminal cases cannot be equated u,ith mental or physical cruelty.

29. Leatned counsel lor the respondent iurthet' contended that the appellant himself had fl led cri minal case a-eainst the r'espondent and her family members includrng SCTIOUS allegaiions on 28.04.2008 by' influencing the police people u,ith the help oi'his brothers under Section 307 and 342 IPC. q,hich clearl) indicates that tire appellant resorted to litigation in the course ol their disputes.

30. Learrred counscl lbr thc resptrntlen', iurther contcnded that thc leamed Trial Court rightly found that the dppellant's case on t-rnancial contributions was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility, as on one hand, the appellant clairned that hc had constructed a house at Kodad and purchased valuables worth nearly Rs. 13.00 lakhs lrom his eamings, on the other hand, in the crcss-exarnination it becattte evident that till he completed his degree in I 995. he had no substantial income, being only engaged as a private teacher or in mitror jobs. Whereas, iu contrast, the l3 respondent was in continuous Govemment Service, slea lily rising to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and drawing regular salar.., l hus, leamed counsel contended that flnancial contribution by th,. respondent was consistent u,ith her testimony and contradicted the ap I :Jlant's narrative and the appellant has not produced any income tax returr; to establish his financ ial strength. 3 i. Leamed counsel lor the respondent further c,i rtended thar an important contraction in the appellant's evidence was his t rliance on Ex.A- I I . a letier addressed bv the respondent to tlre District Coi :ctor stating that the house was in the appellant's name. In this regard, rre learned l'rial Court rightty held that this isoiated statemenr did nt,r prove that the appellant had purchased or constructed tlle house u,itir his own funds, whereas the respondent being a Goverrrnrent emplover in the Revenue Department, she.naturally purchased the property in her rusband,s name out ol love and affection, and that the appellant's selectr,, use of the said document u,ithout substantiating his financial capacir; IS rejected AS misleading

32. Learned counsel for the respondent further conten, ed that glaring contradiction in the evidence of appellani is his attetrt. to claim that

1.1 respondent had forcibly taken away the valuables worth several Iakhs of rupees, when in t-act. in cross-exatnination, it vv'as suggested to the respondent that she was ill-treating the appellant as he was not eaming enough liom his practice, rvhich suggestion itsell'would reveal that the appellant has no financial source to support his ibrnily

33. Thus, leamed counsel fbr the responcient contended thal thc order passed by the trial Court is rvell reasoned and justifiable basing on material a"'ailable on record

34. In support of his contentior,s. iearecl :outtsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Ilon'bie Su1'1slr. Court in Somar Ghrtsh Vs. Jaya Ghoshs as rvell as Rant<'huler l's. .Anonlaboil the expression of "Cruelty".

35. Thereby, leamed counsel lbr the respoircient tlnallv prayed the Court to dismiss the Appeal by stating that ei en as on todal*, the respondent is ready to join the society oi the appeliant

36. We have given our earnest consideration to the contcntions raised on either side. j (2007) 4 scc 5l l u (to 15) I I scc ils 5

37. Basing on the totality of the circumstances, on the 1 round of cruelty alleged by the appellant, this court is of the consideretl' iew that cruelty must be such that the cohabitation between the marrierl couple becomes impossible. Ordinary wear and tear of marriage lif'e, ittle quarrels or recourse of legal remedies does not amount to cruelty.

18. In the present case, the respondent filed a cri t inal case under Section 498-A IPC and also under the provisions o1 the SC/ST Act However, it is senled position of larv that filing of crimi ral complaint by' itsell'is not cruelty. Such a complaint, if found to be fa s : and motivated, may bc relevant. But that is not the case on hand. ln :i ct. the appellant himsell has frted criminai proceedings against the respor lent. Therefore, both parties have knocked the doors of lheCourt rvitf regard to their respective legal recourse against each other. fherefore, .i len the appellant hirnself lodges a criminal case, he cannot take a plea tiLr t his wife is not entitled to take shelter under criminal proceedings. [- rerefbre, such a reciprocal conduct cannot be treated as cruelty

39. -l-he second issue is regarding the allegations of er.r -a rnarital aftairs and conspiracy. the learned Trial Court relied upon a spe: fic circumstance that the appellant stood as guarantor to one Manthripr rgadaVani for a l6 housing loan in SBH, Kodad Branch. This weakens the appellant's denial of any association u,ith her and casts doubt on his allegations against the respondent. In the absence of an-v pleading and proving the rnalicious intention, the allegation of illegal intimacyin this spccific case cannot be termed as cruelty.

40. Similarly, the appellant's allegation o1' conspiracy' to kill and fbrcibly occupy the house on 26.01.2009 by ihe respondent also lacks corroboration as no independent witness or anv document was marked'

41. With respect to the contentions raised bv the appellant that the respondent misrepresented the status of Crime No.tt6/2008. record itself speaks that the High Court has quashed the charge under Section 307 lPC, but the remaining offence was aiiowed tc procceci. tltcreflore. tlie case was only partly quashed. The respondent irr her dcposition suggested that the proceedings were quashed entirely. \lhile it ma1' be an exaggeration or a overstatement, but it does not, b1 itseil u ould amoutrt to cruelty Therefore, the leamed Trial Court was con'ect in holding that the said inconsistency in the evidence of R.W. I did not aff'ect the appellant's substantive claim of divorce. 7 1i

42. With respect oi' allegations of appellant in regr d to contributing nearly Rs.13.00 lakhs towards household valuables anr als. constructing house. leamed 'l'rial ('ourt rightly held that the rr.: pondent being a Governntent servant, cven at the time of marriage i nd is drawing a regularlv saiary, r.r'hereas the appellant had worked as a p .ivate teacher and thereafter tumed as an Advocate, had no steady or regir rr income ha.r,ing any llnancial consistency. More particularly, there is no r:iiable proolsuch as bank statements, salary slips, receipts or account deti i s rvere placed on record to show his financial contribution, except filing a r Ex.A_ I i. E,ven as per Ex.A- I I, the property being purchased in thc i ppellant,s name, reflects the gesture of love and affection by the respontle rtlwife and not a statement of act,al financial contribution. ln the absenc : of any credible corrobor,tion, the appellant's ciaim of exclusi'e ri r ding cannot. be accepted.

43. Fourthly. rvith respect to issue relating to crediti ity of rvitnesses and documentarl evidence, the leamed Trial Court he r that the p.W.2 gave contradictor-r, statements, p.W.3 relied on hci r ;ay and p.W.4 misrepresented his occupation, and such evidence r dnnot establish appellant's case. .\s rc.qards the documenlary el.iclence m_r.ked as Exs.A-1. 18 A-7 and A-11, the leamed Trial Court held as insutficient to prove either cruelty or financial contribution of the appellarrt.

44. Basing on the above hndings recorded by the iearned l-rial Court, this Court hoids that the appellant has taited to estatrtish the ground of cruelS, of the nature contemplated undel matrimonial laws. l:.ven the assertion of financial claim regarding Rs.1-1.00 lakhs worlh articles and purchase of house by appeltant are not suppLirted by. anl reiiable evidence whereas respondent's steady emplo]'ment in tlie Revenue Depanment and rhc appellant's lack of regular income renclt:rs his version irnprobahle The learned frial Court's appreciation cri 'v"itncsses' credibilitl' and documentary evidence is well reasoned and does not warrant any intelference. Whereas, the appl-iani being a Practicing i\dvocate, having entered into an inter-caste marriage, has to mainrain social equilihrium. An advocate is'a pillar of legal slsten and a member of' Society's intellectual elite, to uphold a higher standard of social responsibility. He is expected to be more cautiorrS and reasonable in the manner in which he conducts himself, both personally and professionally. Legal prof-ession is a ro,val profession, u,hich demands not only kno"vledge. skill, proficiency, but also utmost integrity, fairness and respec: i. i'''rth. \ \ l9

45. On rnore than several occasions, this Court feels trat the appellant lailed to discharge the duties of a husband, having e rtered into love marriage at the tirne ol pursuing education. The evide r ce lead supports that the respondent/w'ife having consistent salary, suppr,r -ed the appellant financially in even. manner as possible. Even this Court r pecifically asked the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether t ie respondent is willirrg to.ioin thc society of the appeilant, it was ansrvert d repeatedly that the i'espondent is r.i,illing to join the sociery of appeilant : ren today to lead a peaceful life. Admittsdly, the parties on attaining 1 e age of Senior Citizens, instead ol setiling the issues amicably, are 1o ,king lorrvard to fightir,g with each other with personal issues. This (l ,urt is unable to appreciate such attitude of the appellant. Therefore, reslr rndent should be given a chance to Iead the rest of her life peacefully.

16. With the above observations, this Court holds rat the findings recorded by the leamed Trial Court do not warrant anv in erference by this Court in exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 28 of the ;\ :t 47 . Accordingly, C.M.A.No.1 136 of 201 I is dismiss: l. Interim orders granted, if any shail stand vacated. )a ..)'

48. As a sequel, miscellaneotn petitions pending if any shaii stand closed m. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR NOTE: lt is to submit that due to oversight the LR Copies were not marked at the time of drafting. Now the LR Copies have been marked. This Judgment is substituted the earlier Judgment dispatched on 06-11-2025 //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHU (For Her LordshiP's kind Perusal) B AfiACHARYA One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. (with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri G. Sundaresan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, Advocate [OPUC] 4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

7. Two CD Copies Kam HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.1136 o12011 ( ( () tiri'| , * { HE STA 1 g J\N {)c,qDI.i ) i{:- :t DISMISSING OF THE CMA o v\ $)P IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1136 OF 2011 Between: Siliveru Venkateshwarlu, S/o Butchaiah, Age:48 years, Occ: Advocate Ri/o H.No. 4-10714, Sri Nilayam, Bhavani Nagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... Appe lla nUPetitione r AND Silivery Rambai @ Veerijala Rambai, Wo Venkateshwarlu D/o Butchi Ramulu, Age: 48 years, Occ: Deputy Thahsildar Fl/o Flat No. 101, H.No 1-47, Ananya Apartments, Nacharam, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUResPondent Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Acl against_the Judgment and Decree ilited 24-06-2011 in O.P.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of , appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the case and the material papers and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Sundaresan, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, 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 a //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA UTY REGISTR D E TION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet. (with records, if any) 2. Two CD Copies ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 0811012025 DECREE CMA.No.1136 ot 20'11 DISMISSING OF THE CMA a