Telangana High Court
Shital Mishra Tiwari vs Amith Kumari T on 5 May, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.428 OF 2018
Date: 05-05-2026
Between:
xxxxx .. Appellant
Vs.
xxxxx .. Respondent
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant - wife and Mr. Satish Kumar Varma, learned counsel for the respondent - husband.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant - wife aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2018 in O.P.No.1542 of 2005 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant - wife filed the aforesaid O.P. under Sections - 7 (a) of the Family Courts Act and Section - 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short, 'the Act, 1955') against respondent - 2
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 husband, seeking dissolution of marriage and for the custody of minor children, namely, Baby Ananya and Master Anish Kumar contending that:
i. The Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 16.05.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs.
ii. They were blessed with two children out of their lawful wedlock, namely Ananya on 03.05.2005 and Master Anish Kumar on 27.01.2011.
iii. It was an arranged marriage.
iv. She was studying intermediate and was 17 years old at the time
of marriage.
v. At the time of marriage, her parents presented a Car, 250 grams
of gold, net cash of Rs.1.00 lakh and household articles. vi. Respondent suspected her from the beginning, restricted her movements and did not allow her to wear Saree alleging others would look at her.
vii. She joined Vanita Maha Vidyalaya College, but discontinued due to pregnancy.3
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 viii. Later, respondent worked at Reliance Communications, Kurnool, and did not take her to Kurnool and used to visit her on weekends.
ix. During the said period, she learnt of respondent's extra-marital relationships.
x. Respondent's mother abused her and her family over dowry issues, monitored household activities, abused and insulted her as an 'illiterate and an unworthy woman' and his father remained a silent spectator.
xi. After first delivery, she was abused and despite ill health, she was forced to do household work.
xii. After respondent joined ICICI Bank, he picked up quarrels, imposed contradictory restrictions and insulted her regarding appearance and character.
xiii. He restrained her from wearing a saree alleging that others were watching her and questioned for whom she was wearing it, while his mother simultaneously insisted that she wears a saree. xiv. Later, the respondent and his mother necked her out along with the children. Thereby, she filed DVC Case No.113 of 2014 before III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 4
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 xv. He got prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 15.10.2014 forcing her to withdraw the DVC case. xvi. Unable to bear the ill-treatment, she attempted to commit suicide by consuming mosquito liquid 'All Out' on 07.11.2014 and was treated at Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. xvii. She made another attempt to commit suicide on 22.03.2015 by cutting her left hand wrist joint and was treated at Gandhi Hospital.
xviii. She got issued legal notice on 02.12.2014 demanding him to handover the children and provide maintenance and also to return the marriage expenses and other articles provided during marriage.
xix. She drafted a MOU on 25.10.2014 for the said purpose, but the respondent and his mother did not agree for the same. Therefore, she filed OP.
xx. A complaint was lodged, leading to registration of FIR No.56 of 2015 dated 23.03.2015 at Mahankali Police Station, the same was subsequently transferred and renumbered as FIR No.74 of 2015 dated 24.04.2015 at Women Police Station, Begumpet, and is pending enquiry.5
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 With the said contentions, the appellant - wife sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
4. Opposing the said allegations, the respondent - husband filed counter contending as follows:
i. The appellant's age was misrepresented by her parents as 19 years and performed the marriage.
ii. He discovered the said fact after marriage when he admitted her in Vanita Maha Vidyalaya College for pursuing B.A degree course.
iii. He never asked for dowry. He along with his parents presented 150 grams of gold in the form of ornaments to the appellant.
iv. He never insisted her to cover her face, which was not a custom in their family.
v. He and his mother explained the importance of education and encouraged her to pursue further studies and got her admission in a reputed college to study B.A. vi. She left her B.A. course as she could not manage English-medium subjects owing to her Marathi-medium 6 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 background, but claimed pregnancy as the reason for discontinuation.
vii. During October 2004, he joined Reliance Infocomm at Kurnool and transferred to Hyderabad in December 2005 and he could not take her along with him due to her pregnancy.
viii. His mother used to assist appellant in kitchen work, treated the appellant well, and that the appellant chose to remain at the matrimonial home during her pregnancy instead of going to her parental house.
ix. The appellant mother came just before the delivery and used to sit idle with appellant. All the household work was carried out by his mother before and after the delivery and appellant was given complete bed rest. x. She failed to understand the love and affection of the respondent and intentionally suspected his character. xi. During August 2014, she left the company of the respondent leaving behind her two children and his mother was taking care of them.
7
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 xii. She attempted to commit suicide twice due to her mental imbalance at the point of time, she could not decide what is wrong and what is right.
xiii. She has been misguided by her parents and filing false cases against him.
With the aforesaid contentions, the respondent - husband sought to dismiss the petition.
5. To prove her case, the appellant - wife examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the Wedding Card, Exs.P2 and P3 are the birth certificates of the children. Ex.P4 is the marriage photos. Ex.P5 is the copy of legal notice. Ex.P6 is the postal receipt. Ex.P7 is the postal acknowledgement card and Ex.P8 is the copy of the reply legal notice.
6. To disprove the case of the appellant, respondent examined himself as RW.1 and his mother as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.1 (a) to (d). Ex.R1 (a) is the photograph of the appellant and mother and his relation. Ex.R1 (b) is the photograph of the appellant in a saree. Ex.R1 (c) is the photograph of the appellant and mother and his relatives. Ex.R1 (d) is the photograph of the appellant with jeans pant. 8
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018
7. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove the alleged cruelty on the part of the husband so as to grant a decree of divorce, however, it further held that, as the children are minors, it is just and proper to grant custody to the mother, while conferring visitation rights upon the respondent- husband to meet and interact with the children on Sundays between 10:30 AM and 1:00 PM.
8. Challenging the said order, the appellant - wife preferred the present appeal.
9. In the light of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is relevant to discuss the evidence, both oral and documentary, of the parties. The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and in her chief - examination, she reiterated the aforesaid contentions.
10. However, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she agreed and gave consent to the marriage on her parent's wish. The marriage was performed on 16.05.2004 at Hyderabad. Her date of birth is 16.07.1987. Her mother's native place is at Mangalghat, Hyderabad. As she was interested to pursue further studies, the parents of the respondent admitted her in Vanita Maha Vidyalaya 9 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 College. She further admitted that after one month of her marriage, she was conceived. Her first child was born on 03.05.2005, namely Ananya Tiwari. Her second child was born on 27.01.2011, namely Aneesh. She lodged a case under Section 498A of IPC against the respondent. She is not well versed in reading and writing in English. She did not inform about the suspecting nature of the respondent to her elders or community members. She was asked by the parents of the respondent to cover her face for about two months.
11. She further admitted that the parents of the Respondent do not follow the custom of covering the face. There is proof regarding giving certain articles at the time of marriage, but she did not have photos and videos as they are with the Respondent. One woman, by name Alpa Patel was having intimacy with the Respondent. She did not state the name of any girl either in petition or in chief affidavit. She informed the atrocities to her parents and other relatives between 2004 and 2014, but did not make any written complaint to community elders. She does not remember with whom the respondent was flirting in Kurnool. She did not mention anywhere about the date, time and place when the respondent insulted her.
10
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018
12. She further admitted that she did not lodge any complaint against her mother-in-law for the alleged torture towards her. She filed a DVC case against the respondent and his mother and it is pending. The said MOUs were not signed by either of the parties. She was necked out from the respondent's house on 31.08.2014. Both the children are staying with the respondent. Respondent came to her parents' house and forcefully took away the children. She did not lodge any complaint against him.
13. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and reiterated contentions set out in his counter.
14. During his cross-examination, he admitted that date of birth of the parties is compulsory for Kundali. The parents of the appellant never gave any date of birth of the appellant and no preparation of Kundali arises. He denied the suggestion that he knew that appellant was being minor at the time of marriage. The parents of the appellant did not inform about the date of birth of the appellant. His father got admission of the appellant for further studies and the appellant's maternal uncle does not have any role in it. He denied the suggestion that as per the prevailing custom they demanded gold, gifts and sarees 11 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 to them and to their relatives. When he was working at Kurnool, appellant was pregnant and as such he did not take her to Kurnool with him. She stayed with him till 21.08.2014. He denied suggestion that he suspected her character and bet her on 31.08.2014 and necked her out. He further denied that his mother used to insult the appellant by saying that the gifts, are cheap quality and the dowry is insufficient. The children are staying together with him along with his parents. He denied the suggestion that he was having an affair with the appellant's friend at her college by name Sangeetha and the appellant attempted to commit suicide twice because of his suspecting nature and extra affairs. He did not sign the MOU which was prepared on 15.10.2014 based on the advice of the elders.
15. The mother of the respondent gave her evidence as RW.2, wherein she deposed that the respondent is his only son and has love and affection towards him and she treated the appellant like her own daughter. The children are residing with his son. She accompanied the appellant to the hospital for check-ups, and the delivery took place in Hyderabad under her care. Since the day of marriage till today neither she nor her husband or her son, demanded dowry or taken any gifts from the appellant. The appellant filed DVC case against herself 12 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 and the respondent and upon investigation, the WPS, Begumpet deleted her name from the Complaint. The appellant mental condition was ill when she stayed at her parents' house at secunderabad and she attempted to commit suicide twice under their instigation.
16. During cross-examination, she admitted that there was no exchanging of Kundali before marriage. She came to know about the age of the appellant at the time of admission in the college. Her daughter-in-law is having good nature and she has no complaint in respect of the appellant, but it was the involvement of the appellant's mother. Appellant's mother took her away by holding her hand, leaving the two children at our house. She admitted that the appellant used to take care of her and her husband to all works i.e. Bank, market, doctor etc. They have permanent maid to look after all house hold works, and the appellant never had opportunity to do house hold works. The appellant when she went to her parents' house, she tried to commit suicide. She denied the suggestion that she necked out the appellant thrice and allowed her to join twice on the condition that she should not ask about the extra-marital affair of the respondent and third time she did not allow the appellant to join them, but accepted only two children.
13
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018
17. In the light of the aforesaid contentions and evidence, both oral and documentary, it is apt to note that it is the appellant who filed the aforesaid OP seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, burden lies on her to plead and prove the same with specific instances and by producing cogent evidence.
18. It is apt to note that cruelty is not defined in any Statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. Cruelty must be of such a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it would be unsafe to live with other. Mere trivial irritations, normal wear and tear of matrimonial life, or vague allegations without proof, cannot constitute cruelty.
19. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh1 observed that human mind is extremely complex and human behavior is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound; therefore, to assimilate the entire human behavior 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 1 . (2007) 4 SCC 511 14 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
20. In Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita 2, the Apex Court observed that 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 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 is relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration.
21. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli 3, the Apex Court held that 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 2 . 2023 AIR (SC 2144 3 . (2006) 4 SCC 558 15 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.
22. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of the case on hand, there is no dispute that the marriage of the parties was performed on 16.05.2004. Out of their wedlock, they are blessed with two children namely, Ananya born on 03.05.2005 and Anish Kumar, born on 27.01.2011.
23. It is also not in dispute that disputes arose between the parties, pursuant to which the appellant-wife filed a petition under Section - 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide DVC Case No.113 of 2014 and a complaint was registered as FIR No.56 of 2015 dated 23.03.2015 by Mahankali Police Station. Subsequently it was transferred to WPS, Begumpet and renumbered it as FIR No.74 of 2015 dated 24.04.2015. As discussed supra, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer deleted the name of the mother of the respondent (RW.2) and the said fact was also admitted by RW.2.
16
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018
24. Thus, it is the appellant, who filed the aforesaid DVC Case No.113 of 2014 and lodged the aforesaid complaint against the respondent and his mother.
25. As discussed supra, the appellant made several allegations against the respondent and his mother with regard to abusing, picking up quarrels, insult etc., she has not examined any witness and did not file any document in proof of the same. She has not elicited anything from RW.1 and RW.2 with regard to the same.
26. It is also apt to note that the appellant made a specific allegation against the respondent that he prepared MOU dated 15.10.2014 and forced her to withdraw DVC case, she has not filed copy of the same and there was no cross-examination of RW.1 on the same. On the other hand, he has denied the allegation made by the appellant that he pressured her to withdraw the DVC and prepared the aforesaid MOU.
27. It is the specific contention of the respondent that it is the appellant, who left him and the children in the month of August, 2014.
28. It is also apt to note that though appellant contended that she attempted to commit suicide twice, though the respondent denied 17 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 the said fact in the counter, she has not examined any witness including her parents to prove the same.
29. It is also apt to note that the appellant stated so many things in her affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination which were not pleaded in the petition filed by her. She has also made an allegation that while she was speaking with her paternal uncle, the respondent ill-treated her and her paternal uncle. But, she has not examined her paternal uncle. She has also made a serious allegation that the respondent and his mother necked her out from the matrimonial house along with the children several and, therefore, she used to take shelter in her maternal house. But, he has not examined any witness including her mother in proof of the same.
30. The appellant has also stated in her deposition that she attempted to commit suicide, consumed All Out of three bottles on 07.11.2014 was admitted by her parents in Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. She has not examined any witness including her parents to prove the same. She has also made another serious allegation that she once again attempted to commit suicide by cutting her left hand wrist joint on 22.03.2015, on the suggestion of the 18 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 private hospital officials, her parents took her to Gandhi Hospital, she has not examined her parents or any other witness to prove the same.
31. During cross-examination of the respondent (RW.1), the appellant made a suggestion that on 31.08.2014, RW.1 beat her suspecting her affair with one Balveer Tiwari, who was studying 10th Class and his cousin's son. She has not pleaded the same in her petition. The appellant has also made a serious allegation that the respondent has affair with Alpa Patel and Sangeeta, his college friend. But, she has not pleaded the same in her petition and she has made the said allegation by way of suggestion during cross-examination of RW.1.
32. It is also apt to note that in paragraph No.3 (k) of the aforesaid petition, the appellant made an allegation with regard to the respondent and his mother using vulgar language towards her and her maternal people, she has not examined anybody in proof of the same.
33. It is also apt to note that during cross-examination of RW.1, the appellant made a suggestion that he insisted her to watch blue films along with and forced her to behave in that manner, she has not pleaded the same in the petition.
19
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018
34. It is apt to note that during the course of hearing, Mr. Arun Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the appellant was minor as on the date of marriage and, therefore, the marriage is void. In the light of the aforesaid submission, it is apt to note that the appellant has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.1542 of 2015 against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. She has not filed the aforesaid petition to declare the said marriage as nullity. Therefore, without pleading the aforesaid aspect in the aforesaid OP before the Family Court, the appellant cannot raise the said ground for the first time in the present appeal. As discussed above, the appellant, who is seeking dissolution of marriage, has to plead and prove the grounds on which she is seeking dissolution of marriage. In the present case, she failed to prove the same.
35. Perusal of record would reveal that the children are with the respondent. The appellant admitted the said fact. She has filed application before the Family Court, seeking custody of the children and the Family Court allowed the said application. The respondent preferred an appeal vide FCA No.293 of 2018, and this Court recording the fact that the minor children have been residing with the respondent - father for several years and accordingly directed the 20 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 custody of the minor children shall continue with the respondent - father, granting liberty to the children to meet the mother as per their convenience.
36. It is also apt to note that the appellant and the respondent are highly qualified. They are working now. The appellant was 29 years at the time of filing of the aforesaid OP and 40 years at present. The respondent was 39 years and he is 50 years now. Their children are major. Daughter is 21 years and son is 15 years. Both the children are with the respondent for the present.
37. As discussed supra, the appellant, who filed the aforesaid petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and, therefore, she has to plead and prove the same by producing cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, except examining herself as PW.1 and filing wedding card, birth certificates, marriage photographs, legal notice and reply notice, she has not filed any documents and she has not examined anyone including her parents. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid OP filed by the appellant. 21
KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018
38. Learned counsel for the appellant placed principle laid down by the Apex Court in Independent thought v. Union of India 4, wherein it was held that sexual acts by a man with his own wife aged between 15 to 18 years is void. The said judgment will have prospective effect. In the present case, the facts are slightly different. Therefore, the said judgment is not useful to the appellant.
39. The respondent placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in F.C.A Nos. 201 and 256 of 2011 and F.C.A Nos.196 of 2011 and other High Courts in Swapan Kumar Das v. Smt. Anjali Das 5, Smt. Benu Sharma v. Lt. Col. Sandeep Sharma 6, Sri. Anath Bandhu Adak v. Smt. Anita Adak (Patra) 7, Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Ajbe v. Sau. Suchita Dnyaneshwar Ajbe8 and Reguvathi v. Ramkumar 9. But, the facts of the said cases are also slightly different.
40. As discussed supra, in the present case, the appellant herein failed to establish any legally sustainable ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Though she made serious 4 . (2017) 10 SCC 800 5 . AIR 2019 GAUHATI 90 6 . First Appeal No. 214 of 2025 ( Allahabad HC) 7 . FA No 140 of 2022( Calcutta HC) 8 . SA No. 233 of 2016 ( Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 9 . CMA(MD) Nos.649 of 2019 and 70 of 2020 ( Madras HC at Madhurai Bench) 22 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 allegations against the respondent and his mother, she has not examined any witness in proof of the same. She failed to elicit anything from RW.1 and RW.2 during cross-examination.
41. The law is well settled that for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty in terms of Section - 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955, the cruelty alleged must be of such a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it would be unsafe to continue the matrimonial relationship. Such cruelty must be specifically pleaded and proved by producing cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. The allegations relating to harassment, suspicion, and extra- marital affairs are not only vague but also unsupported by any material particulars, such as dates, instances, or independent witnesses.
42. Therefore, in the absence of specific pleadings, reliable evidence, and proof of cruelty as required under law, the appellant is not entitled to decree of divorce. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly concluded that the appellant failed to prove cruelty. The said finding does not suffer 23 KL,J & BRMR,J FCA No.428 of 2018 from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order is reasoned and well-founded. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
43. The present Family Court Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the order dated 30.01.2018 in O.P. No.1542 of 2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant - wife. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the appeals shall stand closed.
___________________________ LAKSHMAN, J ____________________________ B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 5th May, 2026 Mgr