Telangana High Court
Siliveru Venkateshwarlu, Nalgonda ... vs Silivery Rambai , Veerijala Rambai, ... on 8 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
C.M.A. No.1136 of 2011
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar) The present CMA is filed by the unsuccessful appellant/husband aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet vide orders passed in O.P.No.43 of 2008 dated 24.06.2011, which is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') holding that the appellant is not entitled for any relief of divorce and the petition for divorce is dismissed.
2. The facts leading to file O.P.No.43 of 2008 before the learned Trial Court are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was performed on 21.09.1984 before the Registrar Office at Hyderabad and that the appellant belongs to B.C. Community whereas the respondent belongs to S.C. Community. The appellant contended that at the time of marriage, the appellant being the final year student of Degree college, followed the respondent who was posted as village assistant in Tahsildar Office, kodad. Both the appellant and respondent started their life in a small room at Kodad. The parents of the appellant forced him to shun the 2 respondent, who is S.C. community lady, but due to love and affection, the appellant refused to do so and once again ceremonial marriage was performed between the appellant and respondent on 05.10.1984 in a Temple at Ramasamudram of Munagala village and Mandal. Pursuant to the marriage, the respondent/wife gave birth to a male child on 31.10.1985. Thereafter, differences arose between the parties. It was contended that the respondent started harassing the appellant by attributing illegal contacts with known persons who used to come to the appellant frequently and caused mental agony to the appellant.However, he suffered the same with a fond hope that the respondent would change her attitude, but the same has become futile. In the meanwhile, the appellant completed his LL.B. course and started practicing as an Advocate at Kodad. On the other hand, the respondent/wife was also appointed as Revenue Inspector and working in the Mandal Revenue Office, Kodad.
3. It is further contended that various incidents including an attempt to kill the appellant on 28.04.2008, for which a case vide Cr.No.86/2008 under Section 342, 307 r/w 34 IPC by P.S.,Kodad Town and also another Cr.No.90/2008 under Section 498-A IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered against the appellant and his family members. 3
4. It was also contended that the respondent/wife has taken away the gold ornaments worth Rs.3,50,000/- and sarees worth Rs.50,000/- and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-, which have been purchased out of the earnings of the appellant out of practice as an Advocate. It was also contended that the respondent/wife also got encashed the FDRs.
5. Apart from the above contentions, there are several other factual pleadings placed before the Trial Court, which culminated him to approach the trial Court by way of filing O.P. No.43 of 2008 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
6. On the other hand, the respondent/wife filed counter before the learned Trial Court denying the averments made by the appellant herein, and submitting that the appellant belongs to B.C. Community whereas she belongs to S.C. community and that their marriage is a love marriage. The respondent denied the allegation of the appellant that the respondent harassed the appellant by making false allegations and attributing illegal contacts with other woman. The respondent contended that the appellant himself harassed her both mentally and physically and used to abuse her in filthy language and ill-treat her as she belongs to S.C. Community lady. The respondent contended that she tolerated all the humiliations meted out 4 to her with hope that the appellant would mend himself one day or the other, but there was no change.
7. The respondent further contended that the appellant completed his LL.B. course with the amount provided by the respondent from her salary earnings only, and that the respondent also constructed a house out of her earnings, by lifting chit amount and also by obtaining loan from the Bank.
8. The respondent denied various allegations leveled against her by the appellant, and contended that in fact the appellant himself caused cruelty to the respondent by developing illicit contacts with one lady by name M.Vani, W/o.Prasad, R/o.Kodad, and that the appellant ill-treated the respondent and their son, and used to abuse them in filthy language. The respondent/wife further contended that when she questioned about the appellant about his illegal intimacy with the said Vani, the appellant used to further harass her.
9. The respondent/wife further contended that she got promotion as Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2006 and her son completed M.B.B.S. and intending to pursue higher education at Hyderabad. The respondent denied the allegation of attack on appellant and tried to kill him. 5
10. The respondent further contends that since the appellant is not having sufficient financial income out of the practice, his purchasing of valuable properties does not arise, and on the other hand, she has contributed her salary towards purchase of the said articles.
11. Finally, the respondent/wife contends that being a responsible Hindu wife she has performed all her legitimate duties towards the appellant whereas the appellant having developed contacts with another lady, completely neglected her and their son. Only with a view to harass the respondent, the appellant instituted the O.P. with false and frivolous allegations. Therefore, she urged the learned Trial Court to dismiss the O.P.
12. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following point for consideration:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty?"
13. For establishing the case, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and his sister Ch.Padma was examined as P.W.2 and other witnesses were examined as P.Ws.3 to 5. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the respondent, she examined herself as R.W.1 and 6 her son Srikanth as R.W.2 and other witnesses were examined as R.Ws.3 and 4. Exs.B-1 and B-2 as well as Ex.X-1 which is a settlement deed dated 12.07.2008 weremarked.
14. Sri G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the respondent/wife repeatedly accused the appellant for extra marital life with a woman named M.Vani without any proof, including in front of his clients, thereby humiliating the appellant and causing mental cruelty. It is further contended that a complaint was also given by the wife in Cr.No.90/2008 (Ex.A-2) and complaint in DVC No.7/2008 (Ex.A3) accusing the appellant of extra marital life and made statement that the appellant/husband as womanizer, boozer and gambler, and making such unfounded, indecent/defamatory allegations against the appellant in pleadings and filing complaints and staging dharna in front of C.I. office and in the house of appellant amounts to causing mental cruelty.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that even in the cross-examination of R.W.1, the respondent clearly admitted that she filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the appellant and his brothers and sisters as counter-blast to the complaint given by the appellant in Cr.No.86/2008. In this regard, learned 7 counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. K.Meena 1, wherein at page No.102, it was held that making false, unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations of extra marital life amounts to cruelty.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent by misusing her position and family with the support of brothers, filed false criminal case against the appellant and his brothers and sister in Exs.A-2 and A-3, however, the criminal Court acquitted the appellant and his brother and sister vide judgment dt.04.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.67 of 2010 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases at Nalgonda, which was subsequently confirmed in Appeal.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent/wife and her family members and R.W.4 staged dharna in front of appellant's house and police station pressurizing arrest of appellant, and that staging a dharna in public certainly would lower the prestige, status and affect professional career of the appellant being an Advocate. In 1 (2016) 9 SCC 455 8 support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli Vs. NeeluKohli2.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant further vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court wrongly believed the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2, failed to appreciate that these false accusations of extra marital affairs, repeated suspicion and humiliation before colleagues and clients constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
19. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has erroneously not considered Ex.A-8 the complaint given by the appellant against the respondent and her brother for attacking the appellant and trying to occupy the house, and that the learned Trial Court gave undue reliance on Ex.X-1 (alleged settlement deed) which was not pleaded nor proved in accordance with law, and it was fabricated. He therefore contended that the evidence of R.W.3 and Ex.X-1 cannot be accepted.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of R.W.4, who in his cross- examination admitted that he also participated in the Dharna which was organized by the respondent for arrest of appellant and vacate the house. 2 (2006) 4 SCC 558 9 Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in K.Srinvias Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa 3.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in RoopaSoni Vs. KamalnarayanSoni4 to contend that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and it is beyond repair and parties living separately and only formal decree of divorce is to be granted;, all these grounds make out a case for granting divorce on the ground of marriage having irretrievably broken down.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prays to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and allow the Appeal by granting a decree of divorce.
23. On the other hand, Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly dismissed the OP filed for dissolution of marriage, and that the order under challenge is well reasoned, based on facts and law, and does not call for any interference by this Court.
3 (2013) 5 SCC 226 4 2023 (6) ALD 100 (SC) 10
24. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant has distorted therecord in order to project a false case, and that the respondent on the contrary, has come forward with consistent and truthful evidence which is duly corroborated by witnesses and circumstances, which clearly demonstrates that the appellant has no justifiable cause of action for securing a decree of divorce.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the learned Trial Court meticulously examined the testimony of all the witnesses, including those produced by the appellant himself, and found that the allegations are either contradictory or unreliable, and as such, the findings recorded are all in accordance with law and based on sound appreciation of evidence.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the learnedTrial Court rightly discarded the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 5 as their depositions lacked credibility and did not inspire confidence, that P.W.2, who is none other than the sister of appellant, gave contradictory statements even with regard to her relationship with the appellant, thereby undermining her reliability.
11
27. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 was found to be hearsay and inconsistent, since P.W.3 candidly admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged acts of cruelty and was only repeating what the appellant told him. Similarly, P.W.4, in an attempt to lend false weight to his evidence, went to the extent of misrepresenting his occupation as a Government Teacher when in fact he was a Junior Assistant. Thus, the learned Trial Court rightly held disbelieved their evidence.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the learned Trial Court rightly held that filing of criminal cases by the respondent including under Section 498-A IPC and ST/ST (PoA) Act cannot by itself amount to cruelty, and that in matrimonial disputes, the law recognizes that where one spouse is subjected to harassment or ill- treatment, approaching lawful authorities for protection is a legitimate remedy. Unless it is concluded by the Courts and they record a finding that such complaints were false, frivolous, or malicious, the mere fact of filing of cases cannot be twisted into a ground of cruelty, and that it is a right available to a victim to urge the Courts when she is being subjected to domestic violence. It is further contended that if the contention in this 12 regard is accepted, it would set a dangerous precedent whereby any spouse who seeks legal recourse for protection from harassment could be penalized by having such actions treated as cruelty. The learned Trial Court adopted the correct legal position in holding that respondent's act of filing criminal cases cannot be equated with mental or physical cruelty.
29. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the appellant himself had filed criminal case against the respondent and her family members including serious allegations on 28.04.2008 by influencing the police people with the help of his brothers under Section 307 and 342 IPC, which clearly indicates that the appellant resorted to litigation in the course of their disputes.
30. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the learned Trial Court rightly found that the appellant's case on financial contributions was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility, as on one hand, the appellant claimed that he had constructed a house at Kodad and purchased valuables worth nearly Rs.13.00 lakhs from his earnings, on the other hand, in the cross-examination it became evident that till he completed his degree in 1995, he had no substantial income, being only engaged as a private teacher or in minor jobs. Whereas, in contrast, the 13 respondent was in continuous Government Service, steadily rising to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and drawing regular salary. Thus, learned counsel contended that financial contribution by the respondent was consistent with her testimony and contradicted the appellant's narrative and the appellant has not produced any income tax returns to establish his financial strength.
31. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that an important contraction in the appellant's evidence was his reliance on Ex.A- 11, a letter addressed by the respondent to the District Collector stating that the house was in the appellant's name. In this regard, the learned Trial Court rightly held that this isolated statement did not prove that the appellant had purchased or constructed the house with his own funds, whereas the respondent being a Government employee in the Revenue Department, she naturally purchased the property in her husband's name out of love and affection, and that the appellant's selective use of the said document without substantiating his financial capacity is rejected as misleading.
32. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that glaring contradiction in the evidence of appellant is his attempt to claim that 14 respondent had forcibly taken away the valuables worth several lakhs of rupees, when in fact, in cross-examination, it was suggested to the respondent that she was ill-treating the appellant as he was not earning enough from his practice, which suggestion itself would reveal that the appellant has no financial source to support his family.
33. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order passed by the trial Court is well reasoned and justifiable basing on material available on record.
34. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh5 as well as Ramchander Vs. Ananta 6on the expression of "Cruelty".
35. Thereby, learned counsel for the respondent finally prayed the Court to dismiss the Appeal by stating that even as on today, the respondent is ready to join the society of the appellant.
36. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised on either side.
5 (2007) 4 SCC 511 6 (2015) 11 SCC 539 15
37. Basing on the totality of the circumstances, on the ground of cruelty alleged by the appellant, this court is of the consideredview that cruelty must be such that the cohabitation between the married couple becomes impossible. Ordinary wear and tear of marriage life, little quarrels or recourse of legal remedies does not amount to cruelty.
38. In the present case, the respondent filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and also under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. However, it is settled position of law that filing of criminal complaint by itself is not cruelty. Such a complaint, if found to be false and motivated, may be relevant. But that is not the case on hand. In fact, the appellant himself has filed criminal proceedings against the respondent. Therefore, both parties have knocked the doors of theCourt with regard to their respective legal recourse against each other. Therefore, when the appellant himself lodges a criminal case, he cannot take a plea that his wife is not entitled to take shelter under criminal proceedings. Therefore, such a reciprocal conduct cannot be treated as cruelty.
39. The second issue is regarding the allegations of extra marital affairs and conspiracy, the learned Trial Court relied upon a specific circumstance that the appellant stood as guarantor to one ManthripragadaVani for a 16 housing loan in SBH, Kodad Branch. This weakens the appellant's denial of any association with her and casts doubt on his allegations against the respondent. In the absence of any pleading and proving the malicious intention, the allegation of illegal intimacyin this specific case cannot be termed as cruelty.
40. Similarly, the appellant's allegation of conspiracy to kill and forcibly occupy the house on 26.01.2009 by the respondent also lacks corroboration as no independent witness or any document was marked.
41. With respect to the contentions raised by the appellant that the respondent misrepresented the status of Crime No.86/2008, record itself speaks that the High Court has quashed the charge under Section 307 IPC, but the remaining offence was allowed to proceed, therefore, the case was only partly quashed. The respondent in her deposition suggested that the proceedings were quashed entirely. While it may be an exaggeration or overstatement, but it does not, by itself, would amount to cruelty. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was correct in holding that the said inconsistency in the evidence of R.W.1 did not affect the appellant's substantive claim of divorce.
17
42. With respect of allegations of appellant in regard to contributing nearly Rs.13.00 lakhs towards household valuables and also constructing house, learned Trial Court rightly held that the respondent being a Government servant, even at the time of marriage and is drawing a regularly salary, whereas the appellant had worked as a private teacher and thereafter turned as an Advocate, had no steady or regular income having any financial consistency. More particularly, there is no reliable proof such as bank statements, salary slips, receipts or account details were placed on record to show his financial contribution, except filing as Ex.A-11. Even as per Ex.A-11, the property being purchased in the appellant's name, reflects the gesture of love and affection by the respondent/wife and not a statement of actual financial contribution. In the absence of any credible corroboration, the appellant's claim of exclusive funding cannot be accepted.
43. Fourthly, with respect to issue relating to credibility of witnesses and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court held that the P.W.2 gave contradictory statements, P.W.3 relied on hearsay and P.W.4 misrepresented his occupation, and such evidence cannot establish appellant's case. As regards the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A-1, 18 A-7 and A-11, the learned Trial Court held as insufficient to prove either cruelty or financial contribution of the appellant.
44. Basing on the above findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, this Court holds that the appellant has failed to establish the ground of cruelty of the nature contemplated under matrimonial laws. Even the assertion of financial claim regarding Rs.13.00 lakhs worth articles and purchase of house by appellant are not supported by any reliable evidence whereas respondent's steady employment in the Revenue Department and the appellant's lack of regular income renders his version improbable. The learned Trial Court's appreciation of witnesses' credibility and documentary evidence is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Whereas, the appellant being a Practicing Advocate, having entered into an inter-caste marriage, has to maintain social equilibrium. An advocate is a pillar of legal system and a member of Society's intellectual elite, to uphold a higher standard of social responsibility. He is expected to be more cautious and reasonable in the manner in which he conducts himself, both personally and professionally. Legal profession is a royal profession, which demands not only knowledge, skill, proficiency, but also utmost integrity, fairness and respect to truth. 19
45. On more than several occasions, this Court feels that the appellant failed to discharge the duties of a husband, having entered into love marriage at the time of pursuing education. The evidence lead supports that the respondent/wife having consistent salary, supported the appellant financially in every manner as possible. Even this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether the respondent is willing to join the society of the appellant, it was answered repeatedly that the respondent is willing to join the society of appellant even today to lead a peaceful life. Admittedly, the parties on attaining the age of Senior Citizens, instead of settling the issues amicably, are looking forward to fighting with each other with personal issues. This Court is unable to appreciate such attitude of the appellant. Therefore, respondent should be given a chance to lead the rest of her life peacefully.
46. With the above observations, this Court holds that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Act.
47. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.1136 of 2011 is dismissed. Interim orders granted, if any shall stand vacated.
20
48. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed m. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ___________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 08.10.2025 Vsv