Miscellaneous Appeal No. 334 of 2016 · The High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.334 OF 2016 JITDGMEIIT'. (per Hon'ble Si Justice Namauarapu Rajeshtuar Rao) Heard Sri K. Ramchandra, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri C.S.N. Raju, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/husband challenging the order and decree dated 15.03.2016 in H.M.O-P. No.22 of 2015 on the lile of the Senior Civil Judge. Shadnagar, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/ htrsband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/ rvife.

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's marriage witl-r the respondent was solemnized on 22.O5.2013 at Kuntlarami Reddy function ha1l, Chatanpally, as per Hindu / / ./ 4 customs. Soon after marriage, the couple went to Vaddvalli village, r,r.here the petitioner shovved his q,illingness to have physical attachment with the rcspondcnt, but the respondent avoided the same. The respondent harassed the petitioner by maintaining silence without talking. She was always murmuring in her own method according to her own choice The petitioner took a house on rent at Anakapalii to lead a conjugai 1ife, but the respondent refused to come and did not cooperate with her pungent nature. The petitioner's family members and the elders advised the respondent to lead a conjugal life with better hope, but she did not heed their advice. The respondent left the petitioner's company on 07.O7.2013. The petitioner issued registered notices to the respondent on

21.O5.2O14 and 24.06.2O14, respectively, and she received the same and gave a false reply. As such, he filed the present petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.

5. The respondent filed a counter stating that at the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent gave five lakh cash and also fifty thousand Adapaduchu katnam to the sister of the 5 petitioner. During the marriage, twenty tulas of gold articles \irere presented b,v her parents, which are in the custody of the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner behaved like a psycho r,r,ith the resoondent and created terror on the very lirst night. The respondelrt tolerated the same and continuecl her marital life r,r,ith tht: petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner u,ith the respondent is against his will, and the petitioner and his family used to harass the respondent, saying that she is not match to the petitioncr and demanded additiona,l dowry. Durihg the nights, the pctitioner used to behave with the respondent peculiarly lil.:e a beast and used to talk indecenl manner like an.r,thing.

6. The pL:titioner and his family members asked the respondent t r scll away the Ac.3.OO land in Kothavaripalem and gave tl're anlount to them to start a business. When the petitioner inlerrded to put up a separate family at Anakapally, he demanded her to bring two lakh n-rpees. Her father requested somc time, but the petitioner, his mother and his sister had beaten the respondent on 08.O4.2O14 . On

12.04.2O 1.1. thc petitioner left the respondent in the house of t, his relatives in Hyderabad. Now, the respondent is ready to petitioner's company. She had not committed any cruelty against the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. To prove his case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3, and no document was marked. On behalf of the respondent, she got examined RWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.Rl and R2 Based on the evidence available on record. the trial Court dismissed the O.P.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court did not observe the departed relationship of husband and wife since their marriage. He further submitted that though the petitioner alleged that the respondent had been suffering from mental disorder, the trial Court did not take any steps to send the respondent for medical examination. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen the significance of evidence of PWs 2 and 3, but appreciated the evidence ol RW.1 and her mother RW.2. Accordingly, prayed to allou, the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court, after hearing both sides and 1 considering the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required from this C ourt lO. The trial Court dismissed the H.M.O.P. based on three grounds (i) There is no material to prove the mental illness of the respondent (ii) The petitioner did not take the respondent for any medical examination (iii) The petitioner did not examine any Medical Expert to show that the respondent took treatment for her mental d isorder. Findings of this Court: 1 1 . The petitioner contended that after their marriage, he showed his rx,illingness to engage in marital relations with the respondent. Ho'"r,ever, the respondent avoided such interactions, expressing her aversion to physical intimacy. She refused to cooperate, pushed him off the bed, and even show-ed disapproval towards his attempts at embracing her. From the very beginning of their matrimonial life, the respondent declined to cohabit with him. Subsequently, the petitioner observed that she was suffering frorn a mental illness. The respondent, in her counter alleged that the petitioner behaved like a psycho with the 8 respondent and created terror on the very wedding night' However, on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the respondent admitted that her marriage was not consummated' Therefore, the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner are irrelevant. The respondent further admitted that, prior to marriage she sought treatment from a neuro doctor at Asha Hospital.

12. During the cross-examination, the respondent .admitted that neither she nor her parents informed the petitioner or his parents about her health issues prior to the irarriage' She also revealed that the first night could not take place due to menstruation, and the marriage was not consummated' Even if her claims are assumed to be true, there is no explanation as to why she did not cohabit with her husband after her menstruation ended. She further stated that before the marriage, she had received treatment from a neurologist at Asha Hospital' According to the pleadings, the respondent left the petitioner on

07.O7.2013 and has made no effort to reconcile with him since' Moreover, she filed a domestic violence case (DVC) onll' after the petitioner initiated divorce proceedings. In the said case, she 9 mentioned t hat her father consulted medical officers at NIMS Hospital about her condition, and she was prescribed medication in 2OO4 ancl 2OO5. She further stated that she is currently unwell and had once asked her father-in-law to bring "Trinexyphenidyl hydrochloride" 2 mg tablets when she visited her in-laws' house in Sathennapally.

13. The trial Court in DVC observed that the evidence deposed by PW. I (i.e. respondent herein) is beyond the pleadingq of her petition, and the entire cross-examination reveals that the pW. 1 is suffering from mental ill-health and could not understand the questions put to her. She stated that she does not know the nature ol the present case, and she did not approach any Court against her lrusband to file any case. The trial Court further observed that "1t is dfficult to ascertain as to whether pW.7 could. lead maital life with her husband happilg at least for some peiod and ruhether PW. I has led maital life uith her husband, at the first pl.ace or not. In such circLtmstances, pW. 1 is not entitled to arLq relief under this Act merelg because she mqrri.ed. the respondent. It is also creating doubt on the petitioner/ pW.1 and her parerts that u-tithout discrosing about her mentar health 10 ' condition, sh.e was giuen in mariage to the respondent No.1 euen a,ffecting his mental health." Accordingly, the said DVC r.vas dismissed. Against the dismissal order in DVC, the respondent/wife preferred Criminai Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2022, but the same \vas also dismissed

14. After the marriage, u,henever the petitioner intended to have physical intimacy with his vi'ife/ respondent, she has avoided the same for one or other reasons. Admittedll', the parties have been living separately since 2O 13, and now \\re are itt, 2024. So, their marriage has broken down irretrievably. Because of her acts and behaviour for a long period, the petitioner finds it extremely difficult to live with her any longer in view of her mental cruelty. In the circumstances, the,y cannot reconcile for matrimonial life: On these grounds, the petitioner is entitled to get divorce from his \.ife/respondent.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. Suman Beniutall dealt with u,aiver of mandatory period ol six months for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) oi 1 MANU lSCl 7293/2021 decided on 11.12.2021 11 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In that case, the parties had been living separately lor almost 14 months and about soon after three da1,s of marriage. The petition vvas preferred seeking the relief of divorce by way of mutual consent. First motion was granted. Application moved for lt aiver for six months statutory period, hou,ever, was rejected. In challenge made against thereto, High Court refused to grant the relief. The Supreme Court held as follows: lf the marriage hns broken dotun inetrieuablu, thZ spouse.s haue been liuing apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcile their differences and. haue mutuallg rlecid.ed. to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses i.o moue on u.tith the life. 19. Wlrcre th.ere is a cha n.ce of reconciliation, houteuer slight, the cooling peiod of six months from the date of filling of the diuorce petition should. be enforced. Howeuer, if there is no possibilitlt of reconciliation, it tuould be meaningless to prolong the agony of the parties to the marriagi. Thus, if the marriage has broken dotun irretrieuably, the spouses haue been liuing apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcil.e their differences and haue mutually decided to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses to moue on u.tith the hft." In the present case, the petitioner seeking divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage artcl cruelty are made out. Especially, considering that the marriage failed to l i I I ( 1,2 progress from the very beginning over the course of nearly l1 yea-rs. Consequently, u'e find that the marital relationship has irreparably deteriorated and cannot be restored- Thus, the lacts stated in the above case are squarely applicable to the present CASC

16. In another case, in the case of Poonam Vs. Surender Kuntar2 u,herein the Supreme Court held as follows: "8. We had in a recent judgment analgzed the issue aristng from the unwillingness of one of the parties to go in fora d.iuorce and. u.rhether in that scenaio this Court uould inuoke powers lJnder Sectton 142 of the Constitution- of India to d.issolue the mariage on the ground of irretieuoble breok dotun of manriage in Siuasankaran u. Santhimeenal Ciuil Appeol Nos. 4984-4985/2021 decided on 13-09.2O21- In the facts of the case, u,e had found both cruelty made out o^s also the maniage not hauing taken off from the uery inception for almost 2O yeors, someu:hat sitnilar in the present ca^se We thus obserued. that there was disintegration of maital unitg and lhus d.isintegration of the morriage and tuent out to notice that there u)os no inittal integration itsetf tuhich uould reallg allotu disintegration aftenuards. The position is not different in this ctrse. We are thus of the uieu that it is appropriate that the parties fonnattg part companA hauing actuallg liued apart for about 19 gears." t Mnt!u/SC/ross/2021 decided on 29.O9.2021 In the case on hand also, the willingness of the petitioner I to go for divorce on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty are made out as also the marriage not having takc.n off from the very inception for almost 1 1 years. We, thus, find that there was a disintegration of marital unity, which cannot be reunited.

17. In vie'w of foregoing discussion, the C.M.A. is liable to be allovr,ed. 1B Accordinglv, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside order and decree dated 15.03.20 16 in H.M.O.p. No.22 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil .Judge, Shadnagar. There shall lte no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand <.losed. //TRUE COPYIi A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR N TION OFFICER One Fair,3opy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To, '1. The Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. (with records, if any) 2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Te Court for the State One CC to Sri K R One CC to Sri C S 4 6 b langana High Court Advocate's Association Library, High of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. amachandra, Advocate [OPUC] N Raju, Advocate [OPUC] I l i ,. HIGH COUR'T DATED: 2210112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CMA.No.334 of 2016 ( q ) o o E "( -ii Ai a:- 05 tuff M ,Zi i)t i ), 1 lJ' -:' -, i C'- ;- ALLOWING CMA WITHOUT COSTS a\r6"4 1h" \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 334 OF 2016 Between: Garikapati Siva Kumar S/o. Sri Satyanarayana, Aged 29 years, Occ Pvt. Employee, R/o. Door No. 13-12-21 , 14th Ward, Near GachuBavi' Vaddavalli' Sattenapalli Town and lv1andal, Guntur District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND Boyapati @ Garikapati Jayalakshmi Wo Siva Kumar, Aged 27 years, Occ. Housewife D/o. Boyapati Sambasiva Rao, B.V. Nagar Village, Chatanpalli, Shadnagar, Farooq Nagar (M), Mahabub Nagar District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Appeal filed Under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 against the order and decree dated 15-03-2016 made in OP No. 22 o'f 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusirlg the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Ramchandra, Advocate for the appellant and Sri C.S.N. Raju, Advocate for the Respondent. This court doth order and Decree as follows:

6.$,e 3.'l

1. That the civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the>nereby allowed by setting aside order and decree dated 15.03.20'16 in H-M O'P No 22 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar; and

2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S"M. SARMA JOll'l REGISTRAR S ION OFFICER To, '1 . The Senior Civil .ludge, Shadnagar 2. Two CD Copies tu' - HIGH COURT DATED: 2210112025 DECREE CMA.No.334 of 2016 ALLOWING CMA WITHOUT COSTS q,sS"\ &',