The High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Rohan Aloor, learned counsel representitt I Sri A.Giridhar Rao, leamed ccun.'e i tr-rr- the appellant.

3. A memo was tiied on behallof the appellant on 15 09.2025 stating that as per the dircctiorr of this Court dated 10.09.2025, t[e notice to the respondent throusi.: paper pubiication in 'E,enadu' Telugu c aily, Khammam Edition anci 'l)cccan Chronicle' English Daiiy, Khamnr ,m Edition, has been given un 1 :,.ir9.l0l5 2 4' Despite substitute service of notice through paper pubrication, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent either in person and or through Advocate. Hence, this Court proceeded with the matter. 5' The facts emanated from the record are that the respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the appellant, whose marriage was performed on I l'04'1986 at Kothagudem as per Hindu rights and customs. out of their wedlock, the parties are blessed with two children, one son and daughter viz., Sarath and Chandrika respectively. 6 lt was contended by the appellant that the respondent used to abuse him in tilthy language in the presence of neighbours and his thmily members and insulted him causing mental agony without any valid reasolr. 7. It was turther contended that after getting job, when the appellarl shifted to Manuguru with the respondent, she used to consume drugs and misbehave with the appe,ant stating that she wourd kill him and rhereafter she w.ould commit suicide. The respondent used to mix drugs in the meals and drinking water and also used to give the same to the appellant and his father, and without noticing rhe same, the appellant and his father used tc corlsume the said food, on account of which, they suffered ilr-health. Alier consuiting the Doctor, they came to ir:now that they are consuming drugs. a J Subsequently, the father of the appellant died on 16t{'2000 due to consuming food which is mixeii with drugs. In this regar l, a panchayat was conducted. Even then the respondent/wife did not m,: rd her attitude and continued her harassment against the appellant.

8. It was further contended by the appellant that 1 re respondent permanentiy deserted hirn on 15.03. i996 without intimatior and since then there was no connection between the parties' The responci nt also left the children with the appeliant ivho is iooking atter the u'elfare ' rfthe children. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent and lost r lpe of reunion, he approached the learneci Trial Court under Section 27, F't le 1(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, i954 seeking dissolution of hi r marriage with the respondent by r.vay of a decree of divorce. g. On the other hand, the respondent/wife filed cott rter before the learned Trial Court deny irrg the allegations leveled agrt appellant. She conteniied that the appellant tried O'P'No l: nst her by the of 2001 onthe file of the Senior Civil jucigc, Kothaguiiem, wherein the ;aid Court vide order dated 27.07 .20()'t in I.A.No.i69 of 2004 in O.P.No.ll /2001 held that the OP was not maintainable and the OP was retumed br presentation 4 before the proper Court, and as such, the appellant resubmitted the Op No.25 of 2001 and the same was renumbered as O.p.No.637 of 2005

10. The respondent further contended that compromise talks were held by the Legal Services Authority at Yellandu in L.S.A.No.22 of 2002, which was filed by her, wherein a decree was passed awarding Rs.2,500/- towards maintenance of the respondent, which can be recovered from the salary of the appellant by u,ay of attachment commencing from the month of August, 2001.

11. It was further contended by the respondent that the appellant is making payment pursuant to the afbresaid decree, and that the second term of the compromise w.as that the children of the parties shouid be rn the custodl, of the appellant and he should maintain children and look after thei:: regLr iar necessities. t2 The respondent contended that the appellant is a man of suspicious nature anii he attributes illegal intimacy on the part of respondent with milk boy and even paper bo.v. The appellant used to keep her under lock and key by fixing signed paper on the lock. ( )

13. The respondent further contended that the appellant got addicted to drinking, playing cards and incurring debts and that he is in the habit of lamenting for all his failures, whether it was failure to coll:ct Ioan amount or liable to pay the chit amounts as security for the thir< parties and he used to throw the blame on the respondent

14. The respondent further contended that the appellant I :veled wild and baseless charges that she used to mix drugs in the food anC drinking water, on account of which, father ofappellant expired bv consutr ing such things. On the other hand, the appellant used to ill-treat her :,r bjecting her to torture both physically and mentally. and finally, prayed br dismissal of the OP.

15. Basing on the pleadings oi the parties, the learr ed Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: "(1) Whether the respondett hus tiihtirtt n liont the s ,ciet:', of the petitioner without any sulficicnt tintl rcu.sonoble cuuse.' (2) Wether there is a reasonuhle uppreliension thal it v'otii t be unsafe for the respondenl lts live with thL' otiiiilmat ?'

16. In order to prove the contentions, the appellant hirr.r ell examined as P.W.1 and got examined one Sri Cl.Saty'a Prakash, Adroii te as P.W.2 and 6 got marked Exs.A- 1 to A-5. The respondent herself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-l to B-5.

17. The provision of Section 27, Rule 1(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 states as under "27. Divorce.-(i) Subject to tlle provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a peption.fbr divorce may be presented to the dislrict court eilher h)) the husband or the u,ife on the ground that the respondent- (a) has, aiter th-e soiemnization o1 the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercour-se with any person other than his or her spouse; or (b) has deserted the petitioner Jbr a continuous period of tnt less than tvvo tcars rmnedialelv preceding the presentation of the petition; (c) is undergoing u sentence oJ imprisonment for seven years or more fnr an ollencc as de.fined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), (d) has sint'c titc .solenni:atit;n ol the murriage treated the petitioner with crueltv'; ..

18. The leamed 'lrial Court while examining the statement of P.W.l recorded the contention of the appellant that the respondent used to mix drugs in meals, drinking water etc. and used to give the same to the appellant as well as his father, on account of which, P.W.1 and his father became ill-health and subsequently, the father of the appellant died on

16.08.2000. r 7

19. It is the further deposed that he was un-employec at the time of marriage and subsequently, he got job, and that out ,r' wedlock, two children were bom to them. The respondent used to abusr: the appellant in fiithy language in the presence of neighbours and famil r members and caused mental agony, and despite the advice of elders, the respondent never changed her attitude and continued the harassment

20. During the examination of P.W.2 G.SatyaPrakas 1, a practicing Advocate at Kothagudem, who he deposeci in his eviden:: that he knows the respondent and in the year 2002, the respondent appr rached him and asked to file divorce O.P. against the appellant herein, acc: 'dingly, he filed divorce O.P. on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Cor t, Kothagudem and the same was numbered. He further stated that the r: rpondent signed on the petition and vakalat before its presentation befbre the Court, and that the appellant herein, who is respondent in the r l ove said O.P., remained exparte, and since the responcient ciid not artc-i- l the Court, he reported no instructions and as such, said O.l'. was di missed. After dismissal of the O.P. by the Senior Civil Judge Court, < othagudem, the respondent did not meet him. During cross-exarnination. I .W.2 stated that at the time of filing of the O.P., he v,as atiached to the clfice of one Sri 8 P.Ganesh Babu. He further admitted that 13 days after dismissal of the petition frled by respondent, the appellant approached Sri Ganesh Babu and requested to file divorce O.P. and accordingly divorce O.P. was filed.

21. As against the evidence of appellant, the respondent/wife herself was examined as R.W.l before the leamed Trial Court. She stated that for her studies, she shifted to Kothagudem and got a seat in S.C. Women's College, Kothagudem, and there she developed intimacy with the appellant, leading to marriage which was registered before the Registrar of Marriages on ll-04-1986 under the Special Marriage Act. She denied the allegations leveled against her. She also denied that she herself deserled the appellant and children on t 5.03. I 996.

22. R.W.l further deposed thar rhe appellant got addicted to vices such as drinking, playing carcis and vias also guilty of womanisation. She further stated that she filed L.S.A.No.22 of 2001 beiole the Legal Services Committee, Yellandu and the same was ended in compromise awarding an amount of Rs.2,500i- p.nl. touaids maintenance to ['rer and the said decree is binding on the appellant inespective of the result of the O.P. The respondent further stated during examination that the appellant is guilty of attributing illegal intimacy with milk boy and even paper boy and 9 subjected her to torture both physically and mentalil . During cross- examination, she admitted that for the last 5 year-s they are living separately and both the children are in the custody of th: appeliant only. She further stated that when she went to appellant's hout: to lead marital lii'e. the appellant did not open the doors, and thereafter he did not issue notice to the appeilant expressing her willingness to the.io n his society.

23. The leamed Trial Court held that the burden lies u ron the husband to aff-rnnatively prove the essential ingredients of desertir,r and cruelty, but Lhe appellant failed to prove that the wife was livinrl separately with 'animous deserende' (i) without his consent, and (ii) abst:i ce of conduct in qiving reasonable cause to her to leave the matrimonial fbld. The Trial ( ourt iLirther held that according to the evidence producc< bi' the husband, rhe w'if'e herself left his company on 15.03.1996 withcr t intimation and also ilre wile has permanently deserted him and thcrc \\,ere no ierms betrveen him and the respondent. :1. Th.e leamed Trial Court further held that rvhel lhe respondent pcrmanently deserted the appellant and there were no ter-i s between them, horv ths appellant could get Exs.A-1 and A-2 saici to h:rlr been r,,'ritten by the respondent, and furtheil€Id that it appears thai the aJrl eliant forced the \ l0 respondent to write the letters at his dictation and kept the same under his custody and filed before the Court as if the respondent wrote the same, and the appellant failed to establish how the said letters reached him after the respondent deserted him once for all, and that a doubt arises about filing ofthe OP by the appellant since Sri Ganesh Babu, the Senior Advocate of P.W.2 to whom P.W.2 was assisting, flled divorce O.P. as per the instructions ofthe appellant herein. The learned Trial Court also held that the appellant herein had suppressed the compromise affected between them, thereby the appellant has not approached the Courr with clean hands and also failed to establish that the rvif'e has rvithdrawn his society with 'animous deserendi'.

25. The leamed Trial Court gave a categorical finding that it is quite evident that the wife had reasonable cause to li..,e scparatel), irom her husband and she has not wantonlv r,"'ithdrarv rr fiorn the society of her husband with 'animous deserendi', and the l.rusband. thus tailed to prove affrrmatively both the grounds of desenion and cruelty pleacied by hirn for granting divorce from his wife, and thereby disrnissed the O.P I

26. On a careful consideration of the material on recor,l this Court finds that the leamed Trial Court committed an error in dismiss ng the O.P. No 637 of2005 filed by the appellant-husband for dissolutiorL rfmarriage. 27 It is an admitted fact that the respondent has not tr:n residing with the appeliant since the year 1996. The Trial Court itsel'recorded such a finding but doubted the genuineness of Exs.A-1 and A-1, holding that the ietrers appeared to have been obtained under dictation. E i :n assuming, for the sake ot'argument, that the letters were not voluntaril'r written, the f-ac t remains that the parties have not resumed cohabitation rince i 996. I'he subsequcnt letter dated 18.01.1999, addressed by the wilt to the husband, c()i1tair.'s l categorical statement that she was leaving hir without fbrcc or influcncc. r,,hich corroborates the fact of separation. lE. I r-rither'. in the compromise entered before the l-ega! Scn ice s Authorirv in l.SA No. 22 of 2001, the appellant agreeil to rnaintain the childr.-rr :rnd kcep them in his custody, while also payinr rnaintenance to thc respondcnt. Such an arrangement itself indicates that l e partics had no intcntiorr ol iiving together and that their marital r:iationship had irrc'tric,. :ibl.. broken dclr'n beyond repair. t2

29. The conduct ofthe respondent-wife also assumes significance. In the present appeal she has chosen to remain ex parte, displaying her disinterest in preserving the marital tie. Even in O.P. No.39 of 2000 fited by her, after its dismissal, she made no further effort to pursue the matter. This continuous lack of interest, spanning nearly three decades, unmistakably demonstrates animus deserendi on her part.

30. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgnrent of this Court in C.M.A.No.68 of 2022 dated 21.06.2024. ri,herein this Court in similar circumstances held that the marriage is much rnore than an exchange of vows or a single ceremony. It requires building of a shared home brick-by-brick cemented by a continuing *,ish to live a life together. Every marriage has a core and a foundation holding the union of two persons together. The bedrock of the union disintegrate-s rvhen the married persons intend to break away from the union. It would be unnatural to reject a petition for divorce where the eviciencc iec b1 both the parties show that the core of the marriage has crurnbled beyond restoration. What is evident from the decisions cited is that crueitl, is just one olthe splinters of a collapsing structure where the substratum oi the marriage has broken down in a way in which the structure cannct. be oreserv'ed or re-built. i3 Cruelty, desertion, insanity are but a few of the grounds '' rhich may form the reason for a step in that direction. The Court should lut a quietus to such matters, and finally held that we have no doubt that the appellant is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty an,j of the marriage having broken ciorvn beyond repair and there is no charr, e of the parties resuming their matrirnonial life, and since the very ir rndation of the marriage has t-alien apart, the Couft cannot force the par.ies to reconcile and live together as htisband and wife. 3i. Funher. the tion'ble Supreme Court in R. Srintts Kumar v. R Shanrctho.l heici ihar \ '5.i .ir iht otii\r!. ti ls rciluired to be noted and does nol r (li.\pute thut .tinct, lus! )2 years both the appellant husbr t (J.tl.1t)t1{1(:n! s,,'ift u c rcsiding separately. It also appears tha' cotllt'iit! titL t:utrriitsac ntryc iailed and there is no possibil't bcttlr.:t of thr' srruinul ralcttions between the parties. Thus, it nktrriuyt' httttt,-'n thc up1:cllanl husband and the resporul irretrii'':dbl.r' hrtkt't; LLti n. ln Hitesh Bhotndgar, it k noted t !lut! ,-t,ttri.; i rrii r,'r.r rr;i''- .r :.t tnitriage as irretrievably broken &t it i.r impos:ihlt lt \d|e tht man'iage and all efforts are made i ltn ii:<' ( r,urt it cttnvinced beyond any doubt that there titit,'lt: d !hL Ei."''iii!r' :;itn'it'ing and it is broken beyond repai, "., em ro be in nd and tht I efibrts ru , of reunion zppears thur nt wife hus y this Courr 'n only u hen r that regarti s actually no { t (20 Iq j () sa ( 'i0() i4

32. On perusal of the entire evidence on record and based on the various pleadings on cruelty as well as desertion, an inference can be drawn that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken and that there is no chance of the parties resuming their matrimonial life. To continue in such a relationship would serve no purpose but to perpetuate hardship. As such, this court holds that the marriage held on 11.04.1986 is broken beyond repair. Therefore, on the ground ofdesertion itseli ir is sLritlcicnt ro grani di! orce. ,lccoldingly, C.M.A.No.820 of 2007 is allorved ani thc ciiler of r_he ieamcd Trial Court dated25.06.2007 in O.P.No.637 of 2005 is ser aside.

1.1 A s a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending i l' ar.i'i .-.lali stanC ciosed. 'l'here shall be no order as to costs. SO/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER t \ //TRUE COPY// To, 'l The Principal District Judge at Khammam. 2 One CC to Sri A.Giridhar Rao, Advocate {OPUCI 3 Two CD Copies Sr s,'sit o HIGH COURT DATED:2 410912025 JUDGMENT + DECREE CMA.No.820 ot 2007 I I c1. l,.tE CF \L( s 1ti f'V\, \).- \ r_) 'i?., \ -' .. ( ;-6-qcti \ ,ti , .,, --( .. ALLOWING THE CMA, WITHOUT COSTI: .){- \ \\ [ 34e1 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 820 OF 2OO7 Between: Cheniqarapu Chandrasekhar, S/o.Rajam Employee in S.C.Company Limited R/o. Pit-ot Colony Quarter No.T-l l-9 Ba ndarugudem. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND Chenigarapu Satyavathi, Wo.Chandrasekhar Housewife R/o.P.S. Bose BrancF Po'st Masier R/o. Kalakota Village Siripuram Mandal ...RespondenUPetitioner Appeal Under Section 28 of Hindu tVlarriage^Act, ?Sqir-tlt orders aggrieved by the dr'der dated 25.06.2007 passed. in OP N-o.637 of 2005 on the file of the Cburt of the Principal District Judge at Khammam 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 sri Rohan Aloor, representing for sri A.Glridhar Rao on behalf of Appellant and None appeared for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the CMA No.820 of 2007 be and hereby is allowec 2. That the order of the trial court dated 25'06'2007 in (.P No.637 of 2005 3. That there shill be no order as to costs in this appeal be and herebY is set aside. SD/. T KRISHNA KUMAR IOINT REGISTRAR6 ;ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To, 'I . The Principal District Judge at Khammam 2. Two CD CoPies Svs/sa o / t HIGH COURT DATED:2 410912025 DECREE CMA.No.820 of 2007 ALLOWING THE CMA , WITHOUT COSI'J \\