Telangana High Court
Dr. Pulipati Ravi Chandra vs Dr. Pulipati Sridevi on 31 October, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ FCA No.241 OF 2011
% Delivered on: 31--10--2025
# Dr. Pulipati Ravi Chandra
... Appellant
vs.
$ Dr.Pulipati Sriveni
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel
^Counsel for Respondent : Sri T.V.Subba Rao
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. (2007) 4 SCC 511
2. 2023 0 AIR (SC) 2144
3. MANU/TN/5183/2022
4. (2006) 4 SCC 558
5. MANU/KE/1505/2021
6. (2005) 7 SCC 353
2/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
FCA No.241 OF 2011
Between:
Dr. Pulipati Ravi Chandra
... Appellant
And
Dr.Pulipati Sriveni
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 31.10.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
F.C.A.NO.241 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the order in OP.No.182 of 2009, dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.
2. Appellant is the petitioner-husband and respondent is the wife. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Judge ought to have considered Ex.A2-CD along with transcription which shows that the respondent has no interest in leading matrimonial life. The learned Judge has not considered that the respondent insulted the petitioner, behaved roughly, and thrown away her 'Mangalasutra', broke the articles and suspected the character of the appellant-petitioner and attributed illicit relationship with others. 3.2. Respondent has harassed the appellant-petitioner for living separately from his parents, with the help of elders they started living separately at Labbipet, Vijayawada. Respondent also neglected the child and kept her in a day care centre though the appellant has appointed domestic servant for taking care of the child. Since 2007, there is no cohabitation in between the appellant and the respondent.
4/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
The learned Judge failed to see that on 27.09.2008, the respondent has left the company of the appellant by leaving the child with him and went to her parent's house with belongings which clearly shows that she has no intention to lead marital life.
3.3 Respondent has filed number of cases to harass the appellant- petitioner, the details of which are as under:
a. Crime No.179/2008 under section 498-A, 363 of I.P.C. & 3, 4 of DV Act.
b. M.C.No.7/2008 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad which was dismissed on 26.07.2010.
c. DVC No. 17/2010 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad which was dismissed on 05.08.2011. c. HRC 1115/2009 on the file of Human Rights Commission, which was dismissed on 22.06.2009.
d. Crime No.223/2010 under sections 323, 506 of I.P.C.
dated 13.09.2010 before P.S., Nampally, Hyderabad. f. M.C. 81/2009 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad. 3.4. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the brother of the appellant has lost his job due to false case filed by the respondent under Section 363 of IPC in Crime No.179 of 2008. The respondent in her deposition as RW.1 made wild allegations that the family members of the appellant have shown regional feeling, which is baseless since the appellant was also born in the same religion. It is the respondent who harassed the appellant by filing one case or the other, which 5/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 basically prove her strong desire to be disassociated with the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in (1) Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh 1, (2) Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita 2, (3) C.Sivakumar Vs. A.Srividhya 3, (4) Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli 4, (5) Prabin Gopal Vs. Meghna 5 and prayed to allow the Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was ready to join the company of her husband and the appellant has not seen the child. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly held that the appellant has not made out any case for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
5. Learned Counsel have filed their Synopses in support of their contentions.
6. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent, perused the material.
7. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad in OP.No.182 of 2009 1 (2007) 4 SCC 511 2 2023 0 AIR (SC) 2144 3 MANU/TN/5183/2022 4 (2006) 4 SCC 558 5 MANU/KE/1505/2021 6/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 dated 10.08.2011 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?
8. Appellant has filed OP under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Vijayawada vide OP No.667 of 2008 on 07.11.2008.
9.1. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 14.06.2006 at Kazipet and out of lawful wedlock they are blessed with a female child by name P.Sruthi chandra and he was unhappy ever since the marriage, respondent used to insult the petitioner, behave roughly, treated him with great harshness, negligence and cruelty and also used to neglect the domestic duties, used to show ill temper, used to insult him by abusive language, throwing away 'Mangalasutra', breaking the articles. Respondent also used to suspect the character of the appellant and try to attribute illicit relationship with others. Respondent went to her parent's house in her 5th month pregnancy for Srimantham and stayed there for a long time. Neither respondent nor her parents informed the appellant about the occasion of Barasala and Namakaranam. Respondent did not turn up in spite of repeated requests and with the help of his parents and mediators by name S.Babu, G.Subrahmanya Sastry and others went to the parent's house of the respondent at Manchiryala of Adilabad District and requested her to join his company. Respondent has joined the appellant company in the month of 7/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 January, 2008 and after two days, she left the matrimonial home without informing the appellant. Parents of the respondent along with the mediators came to Vatsavai Village and demanded to setup a separate family at Vijayawada.
9.2. Appellant has set up a separate family at Vijayawada and joined as Assistant Professor in NRI Medical College & General Hospital. After one week, thereafter respondent again started harassing the petitioner. Respondent is in the habit of leading a lavish life, insisted for luxurious items and jewelry and demanded Rs.5000/- for every alternate day. When the appellant asked the respondent for what purpose she need Rs.5,000/- for alternate day, then she started shouting at him loudly audible to the neighbours and used to tease him in front of others. Respondent tried to threaten the appellant to commit suicide on three occasions for silly reasons. Appellant has tolerated all the torture and he informed the same to the parents of the respondent. Parents of the respondent along with the mediators came to Vatsavai and requested the appellant to lead marital life. For the last one year, there is no cohabitation between the appellant and the respondent. Respondent went to her parent's house to celebrate Vinayaka Chaviti and held up there without any reason. Mediation was held in Vijayawada in the presence of G.Subrahmanya Sastry, S.Babu and others from the appellant side and one Ega Mallesam, TDP Polit Beauro Member, Veeraswamy and others from the respondent side.
8/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
Respondent has openly proclaimed and declared before the elders that she has no heart, love and affection towards the appellant and the child.
9.3. On 27.09.2008, the respondent picked up quarrel with the appellant and came out from the Flat by shouting loudly, abused the appellant in filthy language and left the matrimonial home by leaving the child with the appellant. The child was aged about 1 year 5 months. Appellant hails from a respectable family, himself, his brothers and father are Doctors and having good reputation in the society. On 10.10.2008 at about 10.00 P.M. respondent's father with unruly elements came to Vatsavai and tried to take the child forcibly from the custody of the appellant. Elders and villagers have rescued the appellant and his parents. On 02.11.2008, the father of the respondent, her brother and one Ega Mallesam again came to Vatsavai at late night, threatened the appellant that they will kill him.
10. Respondent has filed her counter contending that her parents gave Rs.2.5 Lakhs and presented Rs.1.2 Lakh worth gold ornaments, Rs.1.00 Lakh cash worth furniture towards presentation at the time of marriage. Appellant during the Ashadamaasam insisted the respondent to stay with her co-sister-in-law by name Smt.P.Lavanya wife of P.Vishweshwar Rao at Guntur instead of sending her to her parent's house. Sister of the appellant used to harass the respondent that if the appellant would have married another girl, they would have 9/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 got Rs.10.00 Lakhs dowry. Appellant has demanded the respondent to get money out of double Bed room flat belonging to her father which is located at West Marredpally, Secunderabad and insisted to credit the amount in the Account No.1007/SB/3083, Andhra Bank, Guntur. Appellant has driven the respondent away from the matrimonial home by manhandling her on 27.09.2008. Respondent has lodged a criminal complaint before Women Police Station on 18.02.2009. Appellant has made false allegations and prayed to dismiss the OP.
11. Respondent has filed Transfer O.P. before the High Court, which was allowed and OP.No.667 of 2008 on the file of Family Court at Vijayawada is transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad and is renumbered as OP.No.182 of 2009.
12. Appellant is examined as PW.1, also examined PW.2 T.Koteshwar Rao, got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Respondent is examined as RW.1, got examined RW.2-Vijaya Lakshmi; RW.3-K.Sridhar; RW.4- K.Karunakar; RW.5-S.Shyamala and got marked Exs.B1 to B31.
13. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents marked thereon has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for divorce on the ground that he has not made out any case and held that mere filing of criminal cases against the husband cannot be said as an act of cruelty and the 10/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 welfare of the child also needs attention from both the parents and dismissed the OP which is the impugned order.
14.1. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.
14.2. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system : (See Samar Ghosh1)
15. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not 11/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 possible in every case to pin point to an act of "cruelty" or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration : (See Rakesh Raman2).
16. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits : (See Naveen Kohli4).
17. The appellant and the respondent were at loggerheads right from the inception of their marriage. The marriage never took off. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage for the last twelve years, the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The marriage is virtually shattered and has become a dead wood. The allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other establish that there is no further chance of a rapprochement. The appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances of cruelty meted out on him by the respondent : (See Prabin Gopal5).
12/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
18. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce : See Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy 6.
19. Now we have to see whether the evidence adduced by the appellant-husband falls within the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with that of the decision of the Madras High Court for grant of divorce against the respondent-wife.
20.1. The evidence of the appellant is the same with that of the contents of the O.P. In his cross-examination stated that during their stay at Guntur the respondent has become pregnant and he has dropped the respondent at her parent's house during her 5th month pregnancy for performance of Sreemantham and after 7 months of delivery of the child, the respondent has joined him at Vatsavai, Krishna District. He has sent the mediators by names Babu Rao, Subramanyam Sastry, P.Koteshwar Rao and his parents for reconciliation to get back the respondent to the matrimonial home. After he joined in NRI Hospital, Vijayawada, he shifted the family to his work place, he has not made any complaint against the respondent 6 (2005) 7 SCC 353 13/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 before the police alleging that the respondent came to his office, defamed him in the presence of his colleagues and he has not made any complaint to the police in respect of the attempt made by the respondent to commit suicide and he has handed over the child to the respondent before the Criminal Court, also handed over her certificates under Ex.B2.
20.2. Appellant denied the suggestion that he used to harass the respondent to bring money from her parents for the survival and also denied the suggestion that on 09.01.2007 he beat the respondent, took her to Dr.Sushil Kumar who advised to take a scan, witness adds that he has taken the respondent to the Doctor on the above said date for routine checkup. Appellant also denied the suggestion that to get rid of the respondent he created a false allegation against her and to take vengeance against the respondent stating that she attributed the alleged illegal intimacy towards other woman and also denied the suggestion that on the invitation of the respondent parents they have attended the naming ceremony of the child, also denied the suggestion that the respondent never tried to commit suicide for three times and Ex.A2 is a doctored document created for the purpose of petition. Ex.A2 does not disclose the said conversation transacted from which phone to which phone and has not filed relevant bills, he has not issued any legal notice nor filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Appellant also denied the suggestion that he never tried to 14/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 reconcile the differences between him and his wife and never tried to get back his wife. He also denied the suggestion that at the instigation of his parents, family members, he has necked out the respondent from the house by keeping the child only to harass her. 20.3. It is worth mentioning that there is no suggestion put to the appellant that the respondent never thrown 'Mungalasutra'. 21.1. PW.2 is the relative of the appellant-petitioner (i.e., petitioner's sister is his daughter-in-law). He deposed that he has attended "Sathyanarayana Vratham" conducted at the parent's house of appellant-petitioner and initially the appellant and respondent lived together at Guntur and thereafter they set up separate family at Kannavari Thota, Guntur District. Subsequently, he came to know that the appellant was not happy with the marital life as the respondent used to quarrel with her husband for one reason or the other. Once the respondent has thrown away her Mangalasutra during her stay at Guntur at that point of time he has advised not to repeat such things and personally took her to the Pooja area of the house and made her to wear Mangalasutra. Respondent did not change her attitude and used to behave cruelly with the appellant. Respondent was at her parent's house at the time of delivery. After six months of the delivery she did not join the appellant at his place. On the advise of the elders respondent has reluctantly agreed to join the appellant and she came to Vatsavai Village in the month of January, 2008 along with the child, 15/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 spent two days and again left the company of the appellant. In the month of February, 2008, the father of the respondent and other persons came to Vatsavai and had a discussion. It was decided that the appellant shall set up separate family at Vijayawada. After setting up separate family at Vijayawada, all of them thought that the couple will live peacefully. In the month of May, 2008, the respondent came to his house at Mangalagiri during afternoon and on seeing her she was angry, behaved abnormally and in loud voice she stated that from his place she will go to NRI Hospital. He advised the respondent not to make the life of the appellant miserable and live peacefully, upon his advise, respondent has left his house. Respondent went to her parent's house for Vinayaka Chavithi, did not turn back. He along with other persons mediated the issue but the respondent openly proclaimed and declared that she has no love and affection towards the appellant and the child and she further stated that she do not want to continue marital relationship. The elders admonished the respondent and advised her to lead marital life with the appellant and she agreed for the counseling. Thereafter she left the company of the appellant in the month of September, 2008 and she filed many cases. 21.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not seen when the respondent alleged to have thrown her Mangalasutra but he came to know about the said fact through the appellant-petitioner. Parents of the appellant-petitioner have taken the respondent and the child to 16/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 their house at Vatsavai in the last week of September, 2007 and he is not aware whether the respondent stayed at Vatsavai for two months, he do not know the date, month and year in which the panchayat was held. So also he do not remember the names of the elders of the respondent and he do not know whether the parents of the respondent have taken their child to their house at the end of October, 2007 for one day as per the custom and he do not know whether the respondent was necked out from the house of the appellant-petitioner by keeping the child on 27.09.2008. PW.2 denied the suggestion that he never acted as elder between the appellant-petitioner and the respondent.
22.1. The evidence of the respondent is the same with that of her counter. In her cross-examination she stated that she lived happily for a period of one month thereafter disputes started between them and she stayed with the appellant at Vatsavai for four days in the month of June, 2006 thereafter at Guntur from June, 2006 to January, 2007, from September, 2007 to second week of October, 2007. In the month of November, 2007 to January, 2008. From March, 2008 till May 2008 at Vijayawada and August, 2008 till 27-09-2008 and she cannot say how many times they quarreled between each other from the date of marriage till the separation. Witness adds that the appellant-petitioner used to make every petty issue as big issue. Three panchayats were held during her stay with the appellant-
17/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
petitioner to resolve the issue, first panchayat was at Mancherial at her parent's house, second panchayat was at Vatsavai and third panchayat was at Vijayawada. PW.2 was present when they put up separate family at Guntur and he also came to the house at Guntur for second time to resolve the disputes. On 27.09.2008 disputes started between them at 6'o clock and continued till 8'o clock, on the same day she could reach Mancherial with the help of her neighbour Laxmi and she has not lodged any complaint even after reaching Mancherial, her child stayed with the petitioner till he handed over to her in Nampally Court on 03.02.2009. She has not given any notice or filed any complaint against the petitioner during that period. Since the date of separation there is no conversation between her and the appellant-petitioner over phone. During her stay with the appellant-petitioner she visited the Hospital only once. Since the date of separation she has not filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights but she has filed criminal cases against her husband and his family members for dowry harassment, domestic violence case, a petition before Human Rights Commission for custody of the child, petition for guardianship of the child, maintenance case for herself and her child. Appellant-petitioner and his brother were remanded to judicial custody in view of a criminal case.
22.2. RW.1 denied the suggestion that she used to harass the appellant-petitioner and behave cruelly and also denied the suggestion 18/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 that appellant-petitioner observed that she was not wearing Mangalasutra and as per his instructions she started wearing the same, she did not join the appellant-petitioner after six months of the delivery of the child, also denied the suggestion that the appellant has necked her out from the house at any point of time and she voluntarily left the house leaving the child. She also denied the suggestion that she visited the NRI Hospital and insulted the appellant-petitioner, abused him in the presence of his colleagues by suspecting his character and demanded for divorce. RW.1 denied the suggestion that she voluntarily left the company of the appellant-petitioner and also denied the suggestion that she subjected the appellant-petitioner with cruelty and Exs.B3 to B18 are created for the purpose of the petition. RW.1 also denied the suggestion that Exs.B18 to B31 are not relevant to the case.
23.1. RW.2 is the neighbour of the appellant-petitioner and respondent at Vijayawada. Her evidence is that the appellant- petitioner and respondent were happy for few days thereafter disputes arose between them on petty issues and that the appellant-petitioner has beat the respondent in front of her. Appellant-petitioner has left the respondent and the child for a period of two months from May, 2008 and joined in the month of August, 2008 after panchayat in the apartment with the interference of the elders. Respondent tried to contact the appellant-petitioner but she could not succeed. One day 19/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 the child was ill-health and she suggested the respondent to take the child to NRI hospital or Andhra hospital where the appellant-petitioner was working who will take care of the baby thereby respondent went to NRI hospital and brought the medicines for the child. Whenever the appellant-petitioner left the company of the respondent and child for two or three days she used to look after them. On 27.09.2008, appellant-petitioner came to her house and informed that he is giving divorce to the respondent and asked her to inform the same to his wife. She suggested that as the parties are Doctors they have a good future if the respondent is allowed to work. Appellant-petitioner has informed the respondent directly that he want divorce for which she rejected the proposal. Appellant has beaten the respondent badly in her house, she tried to stop him, appellant-petitioner has pushed her out of the house, she has seen the respondent on the floor crying with the baby in her hands, she consoled her and gave money to purchase train ticket to reach Mancherial and advised the respondent to bring her parents. Appellant-petitioner has vacated the house on the next day. She informed the appellant-petitioner that the respondent will be coming to the place with her parents. Appellant-petitioner informed that he will take the child to NRI Hospital Quarters and on her enquiry, she came to know that the appellant-petitioner shifted to Vatsavai. 23.2. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has acquaintance with the appellant-petitioner and respondent since May, 20/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 2008. On 27.09.2008 at 5.00 P.M., there was a quarrel between the appellant-petitioner and the respondent which went on till one hour. Respondent came to her house on the above said date and stayed with her till 9.00 P.M. and thereafter she went to her parent's house. RW.2 denied the suggestion that respondent used to harass the appellant- petitioner, due to her behaviour only disputes arose between them and that she left the company of the appellant-petitioner on 27.09.2008 without any reasonable cause.
24.1. RW.3 is the brother of the respondent, his evidence is same with that of the evidence of RW.1 in respect of presentation of articles at the time of marriage. He further went on to depose that on 27.09.2008 respondent called him over phone and cried that she was necked out from the house and baby was taken by the appellant- petitioner, she came down to Mancherial crying without the baby but the appellant-petitioner has not informed him about the matter. 24.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has visited his sister on five or six times when she was staying with the appellant-petitioner and they stayed together at Vatsavai, Guntur, Vijayawada. Mediation took place for three times to resolve the disputes between the appellant-petitioner and respondent at Vatsavai, Vijayawada and Mancherial and he was present during the mediation on three occasions. About seven persons were present from the appellant- petitioner side during panchayat but he do not know their names.
21/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
RW.3 denied the suggestion that because of the attitude of the respondent panchayats were held and the respondent has started harassing the appellant-petitioner for various reasons within short time of the marriage, thereby disputes arose between them. He also denied the suggestion that on 27.09.2008, respondent voluntarily left the house of the appellant-petitioner by leaving the child with him and she was never necked out from the house by her husband. He also denied the suggestion that he went to Vatsavai in the month of October, 2009 along with anti-social elements to attack the appellant-petitioner's family.
25.1. RW.4 is the father of the respondent, his evidence is the same with that of the evidence of RW.1 and RW.3 with regard to presentation of articles at the time of marriage and he further deposed that on 27.09.2008, respondent came to Mancherial crying without the baby and he and his family members searched for the baby at Vijayawada, could not trace her then they went to Vatsavai and the baby came to them and to the surprise Nageshwar Rao, brother of the appellant-petitioner came rushing and drag the baby by name Sruthi Chandra from the lapses of the respondent and went away not showing the baby to them.
25.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that initially the appellant- petitioner and the respondent put up family at Guntur and one month thereafter they have taken separate house, he came to know about 22/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 the disputes between the appellant-petitioner and respondent through his daughter over phone from Guntur and he cannot say how many times they quarrel with each other during the marital life since it is a personal issue. He was informed by the appellant-petitioner for three or four times over telephone complaining against the respondent for petty issues, they lived together till September, 2008 and as a father he could convince his daughter and son-in-law to adjust with each other and do not pick up quarrel on petty issues which happened on two or three occasions. Panchayat has held for three times to resolve the dispute. For the first time panchayat was held at Mancherial then at Vatsavai and last at Vijayawada, during the three panchayats he has suggested the appellant-petitioner and respondent not to pick up quarrel and he do not know whether the respondent attempted to commit suicide during her stay with her husband at Guntur. The respondent due to her adamant behaviour subjected the appellant- petitioner with cruelty and left the house leaving the child. RW.4 denied the suggestion that after knowing the information about attempting to commit suicide by the respondent he along with his wife went to Guntur and convinced her child and he slapped the respondent before the elders at Vatsavai in view of her adamant behaviour. He also denied the suggestion that he along with anti-social elements went to Vatsavai and made galata with the family members of the appellant-petitioner after the date of separation and also denied the 23/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 suggestion that they never presented any dowry and articles at the time of marriage.
26. Maid servant of the respondent by name Shanigarapu Shyamala filed her affidavit as RW.5. As per the docket proceedings of the trial Court dated 19.01.2011 it is mentioned therein that "counsel for the respondent stated that they do not want to examine RW.5". In view of the same the evidence of RW.5 is not taken into consideration. 27.1. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of order in M.C.No.7 of 2008 dated 26.07.2010. It is observed in Para Nos.10 and 11 of the order which reads as under:
"10. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance for the period December'08 to October'09 because she has been working from the beginning of her carrier and she is not entitled to claim any maintenance, PW1 during her cross examination never stated about her employment, when the respondent filed a petition to summon the employer of the petitioner, then only she came up with a petition and filed document that she has been working in Central Institute of Foreign language, hence the evidence of PW.1 is not believable, she is not entitled to claim maintenance, without any reason she left her husband and lodged criminal case to harass him. Hence the burden is on her to prove that she is unable to maintain herself during that period and her separate living is justifiable and she is entitled to claim maintenance".
24/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
11. In view of non-pressing the claim of the maintenance in the present M.C. since October, 2009 there is nothing to discuss further about the issue".
27.2. Ex.A2 is the Audio CD with translation in Telugu dated 20.10.2007. The Telugu translation goes to show that appellant- petitioner is inviting the respondent for Annaprasana for her daughter. The translation further goes to show that the appellant-petitioner has to listen to the words of the respondent with regard to the taking of divorce by the parties and the welfare of the child. 27.3. Ex.A3 is the Memorandum of Understanding which goes to show that the appellant-petitioner has handed over the child to the respondent and the respondent undertook to withdraw the criminal case in FIR No.179 of 2008 on the file of Begumpet Women Police Station lodged against the appellant-petitioner and his parents and relatives.
28.1. It is the contention of the appellant that on 27.09.2008 the respondent with an intention to get rid of him came out of the flat by shouting loudly and abused him in filthy language, left the matrimonial house voluntarily with her belongings by leaving the female child with the appellant at 8.00 P.M. 25/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 28.2. The contention of the respondent is that the appellant- petitioner has beat her on 27.09.2008 and necked her out from the house by retaining her daughter.
29. Respondent, RWs.3 and 4 have admitted that mediations were held between the parties, hence the evidence of PW.2 carries weight that he mediated the issue between the appellant-petitioner and the respondent and he also stated in his chief-examination that he advised the respondent to wear Mangalasutra.
30.1. Appellant and the respondent are blessed with a child on 25.05.2007 and she is named as baby Sruthi Chandra. Respondent has filed a maintenance case in the capacity of the mother in the name of her daughter against the appellant-petitioner claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month under section 125 Cr.P.C. 30.2. Ex.B27 is the certified copy of the order in MC.No.81 of 2009 dated 26.07.2010 wherein the appellant-petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to his daughter by name baby Sruthi Chandra from the date of filing the petition. 30.3. Ex.B28 is the copy of the order in Criminal Petition No.208 of 2009 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 17.09.2010 for quashing of crime No.179 of 2008 Begumpet Women Police Station, Hyderabad which is filed by the appellant- petitioner and his family members wherein the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5 26/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 and 6 therein are given liberty to surrender before the concerned Court, in the event of their surrender they shall be released on bail on conditions.
30.4. Ex.B29 is the copy of the order in criminal petition No.2041 of 2010 dated 17.09.2010 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to quash the proceedings in DVC No.3 of 2010 filed by the respondent before X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. The petition came to be dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense the presence of the petitioner Nos.1 to 7 therein in the DVC case on all dates of enquiry on the case except on the day of delivery of the order. 30.5. Ex.B30 is the copy of the FIR dated 13.09.2010 in Crime No.223 of 2010 registered at PS Nampally. The complainant therein is Dr. P.Sriveni (respondent herein) and the accused is P.Ravichandra (appellant herein). It is mentioned in column number 12 of the FIR that after attending the trial when the respondent was coming out from the Court in DVC No.17 of 2010, her husband by name P.Ravichandra rushed towards her and threatened her to give divorce and also slapped on her face, warned her he will not leave till her death.
30.6. Ex.B31 is the Protest Petition Order filed by the respondent in CC.No.285 of 2009 (WPS, CCS) dated 03.05.2010 passed by XIII 27/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad wherein the case is taken on file against A4, A6 and A7 also.
31. Marriage of the appellant-petitioner with the respondent is solemnised on 14.06.2006 at Kazipet, Warangal District and they lived till 27.09.2008 i.e., for a period of two years three months, during the wedlock a child is born on 25.01.2007. The documents filed by the respondent goes to show that she has filed dowry harassment case, DVC case and also filed MC.No.7 of 2008 claiming maintenance for herself which came to be dismissed under Ex.A1 holding that the respondent herself has left her husband and lodged a criminal case against him.
32. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the respondent has managed to keep all the criminal cases pending for the last 18 years and they are still at the stage of prosecution evidence. Appellant-petitioner and the respondent hardly lived for a period of 2 years 3 months which includes the away of the respondent during pregnancy. The respondent has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed OP for restitution of conjugal rights.
33. Learned counsel for the respondent during the arguments submitted that the respondent is ready to join the company of the appellant-petitioner to discharge her marital obligations. If that is the 28/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 case, she would have filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights immediately after filing the divorce OP by the appellant- petitioner to show her bonafides that she is interested to lead marital life with her husband. Respondent has admitted in her cross- examination about her intermittently staying with the appellant- petitioner in the cross-examination dated 18.11.2010.
34. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to cruelty or not.
35. The cruelty pleaded by the appellant-petitioner is that the respondent is ill-tempered, used to insult him, used abusive language and in the habit of throwing Mangalasutra and breaking the articles and at the intervention of elders and well wishers, respondent joined him and thereafter voluntarily left his society on 27.09.2008 by leaving the child.
36. Though PW.1 was cross-examined by the respondent's counsel, as stated supra no suggestion is put to PW.1 that respondent did not throw her Mangalasutra. PW.2 who happens to be the mediator and family member of the appellant-petitioner supported the case of the appellant that he has held mediation between the parties to resolve 29/28 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA_241_2011 the disputes and he also advised the respondent to wear Mangalasutra. RW.1, RW's.3 and 4 have admitted that the mediations were held between the parties. The observations made in Ex.A1 (order in M.C.No.7 of 2008) supports the case of the appellant-petitioner that the respondent herself has left her husband.
37. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel stated supra are aptly applicable to the case on hand as the evidence adduced by the appellant-petitioner with that of the evidence of PW.2 supports his contention that he has made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the learned trial Court has misread the evidence adduced by the appellant-petitioner and also failed to take note of the observations made in Ex.A1 that the respondent has voluntarily left the company of the appellant-petitioner. So also the learned trial Court has failed to notice the admissions made by the respondent, and RWs.3 and 4 with regard to the mediations held between the parties. We are of the view that the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the OP filed by the appellant-petitioner.
38. Perusal of record would reveal that appellant-husband had filed the aforesaid petition vide OP.No.182 of 2009 in the year 2009. It was dismissed on 10.08.2011. Assailing the said order, appellant preferred the present Appeal in the year 2011. The parties are staying separately from 2009 i.e., since last 16 years.
30/28 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_241_2011
39. It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court can dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, it can be considered as an aspect along with other aspects while deciding the present Appeal.
40. In view of the reasons above, we are of the view that the order of the learned trial Court requires interference of this Court as it has lost sight of the admissions made by the parties. Hence, the appellant- petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce and the order passed by the learned trial Court in OP No.182 of 2019 dated 10.08.2011 is set aside.
41. In the result, Family Court Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad in OP.No.182 of 2009, dated 10.08.2011 is set aside. Consequently, appellant- petitioner is entitled for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Interim orders if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s if any shall stands closed.
____________________ K.LAKSHMAN, J _______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 31st October, 2025.
PLV