Telangana High Court
K. Latha Gadila Latha vs Kalreddy Gopal Reddy on 28 May, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.22 of 2025
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at Zaheerabad.
2. The respondent herein/husband had filed an application against the appellant/wife before the trial Court vide H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (1i) of Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the respondent/husband and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 on his behalf. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondents, but no documents were filed on their behalf. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides allowed the application by granting a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/wife preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/wife stated that appellant/wife was suffering from permanent visual low vision with 40% disability as per the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of District Head Quarter Hospital, Sanga Reddy. Respondent/husband is handicapped with right leg, polio affected. Both of them love each other and then with the consent of the elders marriage was performed on 26.05.2010. While the appellant was residing in her in-laws house, when her husband did not came to home, her mother-in-law blamed her that she killed the respondent. At another instance respondent poured kerosene on her to torch and she escaped unhurt, the brother of the respondent hit her and also abused her, as such they shifted to a rented house and stayed there for three years. The respondent/husband used to go to the pan shop and return home drunk. She was surviving on the government pension of Rs.1,500/- given to the disabled persons. Later, they shifted to Mungi Adi Lakshmi Temple Ashramam, as tenants in 2017 and started a Tiffin center. When the appellant/wife got affected by Covid in 2020 and treating in a Government Hospital by staying at her parents, respondent/husband made several allegations against her, as such she gave complaint in 'Sakhi'. She has also filed a maintenance case and is still pending. The marriage between the parties was consummated for a period of 12 years. 3 Though she was ready and willing to join the company of the respondent, the trial Court erroneously granted a decree of divorce. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.
5. The brief facts of the case are that as per the affidavit filed by the respondent/husband in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, the marriage of the appellant with respondent was performed on 26.05.2010, as per Hindu rites and customs, at Mamidgi Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District. At the time of marriage, respondent/husband was working as Accountant in IKP (Indira Kranthi Pathakam) center. Whereas, appellant/wife was attending the self help group meetings. In such a way, both of them fell in love and later informed the same to their parents. Later, their marriage was performed. It seems that both of them resided together separately in the year 2013. Respondent/husband opened a Pan shop at Mungi X Road and attending the shop from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, but appellant/wife never prepared lunch for him. He himself used to prepare the food and she was also scolding him and his mother without any reason, as such they vacated his mother's house 4 and shifted to a rented house. As there was no change in her attitude the owner of the house, asked them to vacate the house. Later, they shifted to a room in Mungi Audi Lakshmi Temple Ashramam on a monthly rent basis and also started a Tiffin center with the permission of temple committee. Subsequently, appellant/wife brought her mother to assist in running Tiffin center, but her mother collected excess amount than the amount fixed by the committee, as such business was closed. They are not blessed with children for several years, as such he spent Rs.1,30,000/- for fertility.
6. It was further stated that one day appellant/wife has taken away all the costly items i.e., household items, 1.5 tulas of Gold chain of his mother and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from almarah in his absence and went to her parents' house. When he requested her to join his company, she refused to join him and gave complaint in Sakhi center, Sanga Reddy District and asked for divorce before them. In October, 2019, respondent/husband got a call from Sakhi center and they enquired about the issue. When he requested the appellant/wife before the Sakhi authorities to join him, she has not shown any interest, as such Sakhi authorities suggested them to approach appropriate Court. She also gave an interview in I-Dream You- 5 Tube Channel on 11.10.2019, in which she stated that she want divorce from the respondent/husband. In December, 2019, respondent/husband conducted Panchayat in the presence of village elders, but the appellant/wife joined him on a condition to provide 3 tulas of gold to her. Accordingly, respondent/husband obtained hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from one B.Srinivas Reddy and promised to purchase the gold, as such she joined him after one month. Later, he came to know that one person namely Nagesh, developed illegal intimacy with his wife and she was roaming with him on his bike. When he saw them, he conducted Panchayat before the elders. The appellant/wife has taken Rs.1,50,000/- from almarah and Rs.86,000/- from his Kiddi Bank. In the Panchayat, she expressed her unwillingness to continue marital life with the respondent/husband and also gave complaint before the Women's Police Station, Sanga Reddy. Later, there was mutual consent between him and his wife and entered into Memorandum of Understanding on 22.06.2022 and accordingly, the respondent/husband had paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards permanent alimony, but later his wife refused to sign on mutual consent and the said Nagesh interfered in the issue, threatened him and demanded Rs.10,00,000/-, as such he gave complaint against the Nagesh in Cr.No.104 of 2022, for the 6 offence punishable under Section 387, 389, 504 and 506 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.4188 of 2022. Therefore, requested the Court to grant decree of divorce.
7. In the counter filed by the appellant/wife in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, she admitted the marriage and stated that at the time of marriage her parents gave 5 tulas of gold, household articles and other items worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the demands of respondent/husband and his family members. She denied all other allegations leveled against her.
8. Though in the appeal grounds, she mentioned that marriage was consummated between them for 12 years, she has not raised the said issue in her counter at the earliest point of time. Respondent/husband stated that he had spent Rs.1,30,000/- towards fertility as she has not conceived even after several years of marriage. In H.M.O.P, respondent/husband stated that appellant/wife was having relationship with one Mallesh in Para No.12 and 13 and contended that he conducted Panchayat before elders regarding the said issue, but in Para No.15, he stated that she was having 7 relationship with one Nagesh. It seems both the appellant and respondent entered into memorandum of understanding on 22.06.2022 and the respondent/husband agreed to give Rs.3,50,000/- to the appellant/wife as per the said understanding and she has acknowledged the same by way of separate receipt. Respondent/husband contended that even after receiving the amount, Nagesh insisted him to give Rs.10,00,000/- and the appellant/wife has also refused to sign the same. Respondent/husband gave legal notice to the appellant/wife on 30.07.2022. Though, the appellant/wife received the notice, did not give any reply. In an interview given by her in the You-Tube Channel, she clearly stated she did not want to reside with him, as such he sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery, but the trial Court observed that adultery was not established. Mere allegation is not a sufficient ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and granted divorce to the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty.
9. Admittedly, appellant and respondent are disabled persons, they love each other and married in the year 2010, but respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P for divorce in the year 2022. They are not blessed with any children. Respondent/husband 8 stated that he incurred Rs.1,30,000/- towards fertility expenses. Appellant/wife in her appeal grounds stated that there was consummation of marriage, but she has not mentioned it in her counter at the earliest point of time, as such it cannot be believed. Though the respondent/husband made allegation against adultery of the appellant/wife with Nagesh, he failed to prove the same. Respondent/husband further stated that as the said Nagesh threatened him, he gave complaint against Nagesh in Cr.No.104 of 2022, and after investigation police filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.4188 of 2022. When respondent/husband made serious allegation of adultery against appellant/wife, it is for him to establish the same, as such the trial Court rightly held that marriage cannot be dissolved on the ground of adultery.
10. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 1 , the apex Court relying on its earlier judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli 2 observed certain incidents of cruelty in paragraph No.101 which are as under:-
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances 1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 2 (2006) 4 SCC 558 9 indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years 10 will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
11. Respondent/husband stated that she has taken away gold, household articles and cash, in his absence without his permission. He also stated that he agreed to purchase 3 tulas of gold to her at her instance and also obtained hand loan of 1 ½ lakh from one Srinivas, but she has taken away from him along with Rs.86,000/- from his kiddi bank without his knowledge. The said attitude of the appellant/wife definitely amounts to 11 cruelty on her part. As the appellant/wife is not interested to live with him, she also entered into memorandum of understanding and received permanent alimony of Rs.3,50,000/- and later refused the same to grant divorce, and thus the trial Court considering all the aspects rightly granted a decree of divorce. Though the appellant/wife preferred an appeal and contended that respondent/husband was addicted to bad vices and they were separated due to interference of her sisters-in-law, the trial Court without appreciating the facts properly, decreed the O.P in favour of the respondent/husband, the appellant/wife has not stated regarding interference of sisters-in-law and also regarding bad vices against the respondent in her counter, but came up with the said allegations in the appeal grounds. Though the marriage between the appellant and respondent was a love-cum-arrange marriage, later in the course of time, appellant/wife is not interested to live with the respondent/husband and both of them even entered into memorandum of understanding and permanent alimony was also paid to the appellant/wife and respondent/husband gave complaint against Nagesh, as he was threatening him to give Rs.10,00,000/- to appellant/wife. In Para No.15 of the counter, it was stated that both of them are not interested to lead marital life and there is no possibility of 12 reunion, and thus the trial Court considering all the facts in detail rightly dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said Order.
12. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Order of the trial Court in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2022, dated 12.11.2024. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 28.05.2025 tri 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.22 of 2025 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) DATE: 28.05.2025 TRI