The High Court · 2025

JUDGMENT: it)e r I lon bLe .Smr. .,/rrslrr.c P Sree Sudhct) This C:i il Misr:cllaneous Appeal is filed against thc Order rlaLecl 11.10.2023 in Il.M.O.P.No.3 of 2022 pa:;sed by the Ii:arnccl Senior Civil ..luclge, Mulugu.

2. Resporclr'nt hercir.r/husbancl has filed an application ztgainst tl're rr pltc lian t / r,r,ifc br:lorc thc trizrl Court uide Fi.M.O.P.No.C i', of 202'.2, uncle r Scction L3(l)(ia) of Hinciu Marriage AcL. 1955, lor gr-ant of drvorcc by dir;sol,,,ing his marriage '"vitlr thc rrppr:1lant. Thc trial Court al'tcr considering Lhc argumcnrs of ltoLh sidcs :rlloured the application grrrnting a decrec of dilorce b_v dissoJving tltc marriagc l,etween the appellant and respondcnt. Aggrievcd by tl're :;aid Order, appcllant/wil: prcfr:rrc<1 thc ;;rcscnL Civil Miscclltrn, rus Appeal.

3. The liricf l'acts of the case ilre rcspondcn r/ h r-r sband lilcd the FI.M.O.l).No.03 ot 2022, stating that I'us nreLrriirllc u,as took place 17 .O2.2O 18, with thc altpellant hcrein. Latr:r, Lhcir malriage was consumnrate(l. The 2 appellant/wife insultcd him on sevcral occasions in thc presencc of relatives and friends. When she insistcd him to shift their rcsidencc from Katapur village to trdulagattupalli village, whcre her parents are residing, he refused for the same, as hc is having old age parents and thus she started harassing him physically and mcntally. On 31.05.2018, she left his conjugal society wi[hout any reason. He approachecl thc appcltanr/r,r,ifc and hcr parcnts scvcral Limes and requcsted hcr tO join [.ris conjugal society, but she refused for the same. In the last rveek o[ August, 2018, his parents and relatives approached Lhe appellant and requested her to join r.r,ith him, but shc did not come forward. Scveral Panchayats vvere held bctwecn thcm. Finally, hc got issucd lcgal noticc to the appe llant/ tvifc. Shc received the same and got issucd cvasivc reply r.r,ith falsc allcgations and gavc complaint ltclore the police, Manakourlur on 27 .O9 .2O\8- The Police registcre d a case in Cr. No.24 I of 2018, under Section 498-A ol IPC. As there is no scopc ol reunion, he filed the application for divorce.

4. In the coun ter filed by the appellant/ wifc in H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022, shc stated that her parents agreed to give Rs.20,O0,000/- tor.vards dou.ry to thc responclent/ h usbancl, out of which they paid Rs.14,00,000/- at thc time o[ marriagc. I Apart from thrl[ they also gave 15 Tulas of gold ornzLmettts and Ac.1 OO gls of land with other household artir;les to the respondent. Ilt:spondent/ husband was working irr a private plastic Comprtt'ry arnd informcd to her that he \'/as getting Rs.40,O0O/ pcr mot-rth. The mo[her of the responclctrt harassed her physicalll and mentally by selling the land given by her parenls at thc time of marrrage and further demarLded her to bring tl-re ba rtt'rce dou'ry o[ Rs 6,00,OOO/- On that aspcct' galala was rnade by the respondent and his nlother on 12.O5.2018. Rcsponden t/ husbancl uscd [o comc I'totne late and goes to movics u'ithout hcr. She also made allegatirrns against her father in-lzrrv. She lurther stated that there was z: pallchayat on 18-O8.201t3. thc responderlt admitted his guilt and promised not to repea lhe sanle in futurc She gave co -nplirint on 07.O9.2O18 and it r.r'as registered as Cr'No'241 o[ 2018, under Section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 ol D P Act, on 'l'7 09 2018' She and her lhmily members requtcsted the responc enL to take her back witlr an unclertaking ll'rat hc will not h:lrass her in future. As sht vexed u'ith thc attitude of the respondent and his family membcrs, she was residing u'ith her aged par:nts She is having threat to hcr life [rom the rcspondent/ husbat :d ..,.#:.1 4

5. Respondent/ husband exzihined himself as P.W.1 and gol- marked trxs.Pl to P5 on his behalt. Appellant/u'ife examincd herself as R.W. 1 and also got examined R.W.2 on her behalf, but she has not tilcd any documents. The.. rrial Court after considering thc oral and documentary evidencc on both sides, dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the said Orcler, appellarrt/ r,r'ifc preferrcd Lhc prcsent appeal.

6. Lcarncd Counscl for the appellant/wife mainly contcnded that appellant ancl responclent resided at Bhongir and their marriage took place at thc rcsidence of the respondent i.e.,.Jayei Shankar Bhupalpally, as such the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Appellant rvas ready to join tlre rcspondent during the pcndency of the proccedings, but the respondent/ husbancl clearly stated that he relused to receivc her. The trial Court erred in concluding that both o[ thcm lived separately for 4 l, ycars, as such thc possibility of reunion u'as nil. The trial Court erred in concluding that respondent was subjected to cruelty in the hand of the appellant. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of thc trial Court. 7 . Respondent/ husband in his Cross-cxamination stated that he completcd M.Sc. and hc u'orked in a factory of 7 / -) manufacturing of plastic chairs. He was cloing a private job at Bhuvanagiri with a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. Appcllant/u,ilc livcd rvith him only for one month. He also stalcd that.rppellant scnt })im to thc jail and he was n jrril for trvo days. Shc hersclf left the housc without any rcason, as such he was not wrlJing to livc rr.ith her.

8. Appeilant/wife in her Cross-examination srated that she complcted Irr:r l)ost Graduation. She is also havi tg (,ne sister, who is alsc :r dir.orccr:. Though she stated tl-rat her father is having Acs.7 - OO gts of agricultural land, shc has not liied any documcnt to t hat e ffect and she has erlso not filed :ut1' document 1o show th rt her par(in[s gave Ac.l 0O gts o[ land to the respondent at the time of marriage- Evcn in tht: complaint given to thc polir:e, she has not made an-v complainr against hcr farher-in las. She has not mcntioncd the spccilic dates on which the respondcnt and his mother harasscd he:- and insisted her to sel1 away the land to pay additionerl dowry. c). Admittcdll., appcllant/u,r[c went to her parents house on

13.05.2018. She stated [hat respondent sent her for signing of Kalyana La-r rni Scheme papers at M.R.O officc. Or 22.06.2018, she fell down and sustaincd fracLurc, even Lhen hcr ltusbatrd 6 did not take her back. R.W.2 is the close relative of the responden[ and he is one of the eldcrs of the marriage. Thcrc is no dispute rcgarding the rnzrrriage betu,ccn the appcllant and respondent. Rcspondent/ I-rusband gave legal notice to the appellant/wife on 17 .O9.2OlB, in ivhich he stated that appellant/ r.r,ife left his Company on 13.05.20 I 8 and in spite of sevcral PanchayaLs, shc dicl r-rot loin him, ars such rcqucstcri lor divorce by mutual consenr. Appellant/r,vife gave reply noticc on

06.1O.2018, in which she statcd that her parents agreed to givc Rs.2O,00,00O/-, 5 Tnlas o[ golcl and Ac.1 - 0O grs of land to rhe respondent. Out of Rs.20,O0,000/-, her parents gave Rs.14,00,000/- at the time of marriage. Later, respondent and her mother dcmanding Rs.6,OO,0OO/-, scnt her out in July, 2018, as such she gave conrpl:rinr ro the police on 07 .Og.2O1g. After enquiry, on 27 .O9.20 18, Polrce rcgistercd a casc in Cr.No.241 of 2018, under Scction 498 A ol IpC and Section 4 of D.P.Act. Shc furthcr statcd that she r-rever ir-rsisted the respondent to shift lheir residencc, cvclt now she is rcady to join the society of the respondent and she is not rvilling to give divorce on mutual consent.

10. The contention of thc rcspondcnt/ husband is that appellant deserted him in the year 201g and did not join him in '{"3 7 spite of condLlcting several panchayats and even al-ter issuing of legal r-rotice, rvhereas appellant/wife contcnded thrlt shc never neglectccl hirn and he sent her out for signing on t he papers of Kalyana Laxnri Scheme. As per the legal notice, al)pellant wen[ to her parenls'housc on 13.O5.2O18 and O.P for divorce was filed in the '.,r:ar 2022. Though the appellant/wilt stated that she is interested to join him, she did not file O.I' for conjugal rights at leas;l after lrling of the divorce O.P by thc respondent Hou'ever, shc filed criminal complaints against hinr- In view of the criminal r:omplait-tls relaLionship bctwccn thc:rppcll:rnt and respondent got strairled and respondent is not inclineci to Lakc her back. Appellant staled that respondent/ husba rrd demzrnded additional d,)wry along with his mother and ltrlrasscd her mentally and physically and she also made allegations against her father-in law, who is aged about 63 1.ears. Thor Lgh sht: gave complaint against the respondent / husband, shc hirs not made saicl allegations against her taLher-in-lau' in tht complaint, however, in tt're year 2022, w'hen she filed counter, :;he camc up the said allegations against her ltrther-in lau'. Respondent/ Lrusband stated that appellant/ u'r I,: u'as not resicling with him and Ieft him without any reasoll rrnd shc was not interestcl lo livc in his house, she also maclc allegations against his father and several pancha1r265 r,t'ere held betureen -rr.--- -:t.--- -3g-,-rrrrr3.rrat! F!!*ir_',n:*tpt""-il11l l*---t g11 : t,: ; .-.. I I I 8 lhem, whereas appellant/ r,r,ife stated that respondent was addicted to alcohol and coming latc in the nights and going to movies alonc. Considering all thesc' aspects, trial Court rightly granted the decree of divorcc and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said C)rder. 1 1. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal IS dismissed. by confirming the Orcler of thc trial Court in H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022, dated 1 1. 10.2023. '['herc shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, iI any, shalI stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To, ,| The Senior Givil Judge, Mulugu (With Reco s One CC to Sri T.P One CC to Sri Azi Two CD CoPies c) ranab Kumar ,Advocate (O m Parbatani, Advocate (OPUC) 2 3 4 Ks/gh w I HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 JUDGMENT GMA.No.533 of 2024 STATE Ao 1 c o t1 JUN T6 c + I _cr.-srl Dismissing the C.M.A Without costs. / ro6tel X6, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 533 OF 2024 Between: Diddi Dist. @ Theerthala Kavitha, W/o Diddi Ranjith, D/o Theerthala Chandraiah, Age 27 cc Household, R/o Edulagattupalli Village, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND Diddi Ranjith, S/o Krishna Rao, Age 28 years, Occ Pvt. Employee, Rl/o Katapur Village, SS Tadvai lvlandal, Jaya Shankar Bhupalapally DiStpONDENT/pETtTtONER Appeal filed U/s 28 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by aggrieving the Judgment and Decree made in H.M.O.P.No.03 of 2022 dated '11.10.2023 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu. ORDER : 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Pranab Kumar for the Appellant and of M/s Azim Parbatani, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That the Order passed by the Trial Court in H.M'O.P.No.03 ol 2022 dated 11.10.2023 be and hereby is confirmed. 3. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. i/TRUE COPY// SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu 2. Two CD Copies E'-- / HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 DECREE CMA.No.533 of 2024 Dismissing the C.M.A Without costs. tt(9?e^ ft,.,