The Telangana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a wife seeking the dissolution of her marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, upholding the decision of the Family Court, Khammam. The Division Bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, observed that the appellant failed to substantiate her serious allegations with evidence and noted that the parties were, in fact, residing under the same roof.
Case Background
The appeal, Family Court Appeal No. 74 of 2015, challenged the order and decree dated November 28, 2014, passed in FCOP No. 66 of 2012 by the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District Judge, Khammam.
The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on May 29, 1986, as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was arranged, and the parties are close relatives, with the respondent being the maternal uncle of the appellant. They have two sons from the wedlock.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce. She alleged that the respondent was addicted to vices and maintained an “illegal contact” with one Vankayala Kavitha, an employee in their water plant business. She further claimed that the respondent harassed her physically and mentally for money and “necked her out” of the house on May 18, 2011. She also contended that the respondent, in collusion with a relative, damaged her property and machinery at the ‘Hanuman Package Drinking Water Plant’.
Arguments of the Parties
The respondent-husband opposed the petition, denying the allegations of cruelty and desertion. He contended that the appellant possessed an “adamant nature” and had once attempted to commit suicide. He submitted that he had acquired properties through hard work and executed sale deeds in the appellant’s name, which she later gifted back to him.
The respondent alleged that when the appellant attempted to alienate the properties to third parties, neglecting the welfare of their children, he was forced to file a suit for perpetual injunction (O.S. No. 498 of 2012). He maintained that he never deserted the appellant.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court scrutinized the evidence on record, noting that to prove cruelty and desertion, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2 but did not mark any documents in the Family Court proceedings.
The Bench observed that while the appellant made serious allegations regarding the respondent’s illicit relationship and the damage to the water plant, she failed to produce corroborating evidence. Specifically, the Court noted:
- The appellant did not examine any independent witnesses or the employee with whom the illicit relationship was alleged.
- She failed to file the copy of the decree in O.S. No. 606 of 2011, which she claimed was decided in her favour regarding the property dispute.
- No witnesses were examined to prove the alleged incident of property damage on November 27, 2011.
Addressing the standard of proof required in matrimonial cases, the Court stated: “Cruelty is not defined in any statute. The spouse, who is alleging cruelty against the other spouse, has to plead and prove by producing relevant evidence.”
The Court further held: “Cruelty is a serious allegation which the appellant has to plead and prove. Petty issues between the parties are not cruel acts. Wear and tear between the spouse cannot be considered as cruelty.”
Interaction with the Parties
Significantly, the High Court directed the parties to appear for an interaction on October 27, 2025. During this interaction, it was revealed that despite the litigation, the appellant and respondent were staying in the same house along with their sons and daughter-in-law and were jointly running the water plant business.
The Court observed: “They came to the bus stand on the very same two wheeler driven by the respondent, and they came to this Court from Khammam to Hyderabad in the very same bus. They came to the Court together. The said facts would reveal that there is no desertion between them as alleged by the appellant herein.”
While the appellant expressed disinterest in leading a life with the respondent, the respondent expressed his intention to continue the marital life, citing the welfare of their children and the fact that the appellant is his niece.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding cruelty and desertion. The Bench remarked, “On mere allegations, neither Family Court nor this Court dissolve the marriage of the parties as they are staying together and that the marriage is not irretrievably broken down.”
Finding the Family Court’s order to be reasoned and well-founded, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
