Telangana High Court
M Nirupama, Hyderabad vs Maganti Janardhana, Hyderabad on 29 April, 2026
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.82 OF 2016
DATED: 29th APRIL, 2026
Between:
xxxxx
.. Appellant-Respondent
Vs.
xxxxx
.. Respondent-Petitioner
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
1. This Memorandum of Family Court Appeal is filed under
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘FCA’)
assailing the order passed by the learned Family Court at
Hyderabad in FCOP No.903 of 2011, dated 31.03.2016.
2. Appellant is the respondent and respondent is the petitioner
in FCOP No.903 of 2011.
2/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after
referred to as appellant-wife and respondent-husband.
4.1. Respondent-husband has filed petition under Section
13(1)(ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve his marriage
with the appellant-wife performed on 09.02.1995 by a decree of
divorce.
4.2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of the
respondent-husband with the appellant-wife is performed on
09.02.1995 at Ameerpet, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and
customs and they were blessed with a son by name Sai Krishna on
17.10.1997. During the pregnancy appellant-wife left the
respondent-husband house in the month of August, 1997, she did
not come back in spite of several demands made by the
respondent- husband. In the month of August, 2000 appellant-
wife has joined the respondent-husband and they led marital life
till July, 2003 at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. In the month of July,
2003 respondent-husband left for Chennai for doing Ph.D. in I.I.T.
Madras during that time, appellant-wife refused to accompany him
and left the matrimonial home started residing with her parents. In
the year 2006 appellant-wife secured a job after completing her
M.C.A.Respondent-husband has returned from Chennai in the year
2006 and made attempts to bring back the appellant-wife to his
3/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
fold but she did not heed his request. Appellant-wife deserted the
respondent-husband and she never allowed mutual trust, regard
and respect as well as love and affection. During the stay of the
appellant-wife with the respondent-husband she used to ill-treat
him and insisted him to appear for Group-I Services examination
and also to leave his parents, get his share in the property and give
the same to her and also insisted him to live as illatom son-in-law.
Respondent-husband has got issued legal notice on 27.04.2011 to
the appellant-wife but the same was returned as ‘addressee left’.
He sent another notice dated 12.05.2011 which was received by
the appellant-wife but she did not choose to give reply and prayed
to grant decree of divorce.
5. Appellant-wife filed counter admitting the marriage and the
child born out of lawful wedlock and denied the rest of the
allegations. She further contended that immediately after the birth
of the male child she joined the company of the respondent-
husband in the month of December, 1997 and she also visited her
in-laws place, she lived with her husband till he left for Chennai for
doing Ph.D. in the month of July, 2003. Schedule of Ph.D. was
limited to three years but the respondent-husband took four more
years for completing the same. On the advice of the respondent-
husband, appellant-wife started staying at her parent’s house.
4/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
Respondent-husband used to come to her parent’s house, stay
with her whenever he comes to Hyderabad from 2003 to 2011. Just
before issuing legal notice in the month of May 2011, respondent-
husband appears to have deposited some amount in her Bank
account. Due to Astrologer’s advise and as per the Horoscope the
name of their son should start with the letter ‘L’ as such the
appellant-wife has changed the name of her son from Sai Krishna
to ‘Lalith Sai Krishna’, the said change was made by both of them
jointly. Except the interference of the mother of the respondent-
husband, the marital life was quite peaceful. Appellant-wife is
ready to join the company of the respondent-husband and prayed
to dismiss the O.P.
6. Respondent-husband has filed rejoinder to the counter filed
by the appellant-wife and denied the allegations made therein
except admitting the marriage and the child.
7. Respondent-husband is examined as PW.1 and also
examined PW.2-K.Viswanatha Sharma, PW.3-M.Ranga Babu,
PW.4-M.Venkata Raju, PW.5-M.Bapuji, PW.6-M.Narasimha Rao
and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Appellant-wife is examined as RW.1
and got marked Exs.R1 to R4.
5/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
8. The learned Family Court after analysing the evidence
adduced by the parties with that of the documents marked thereon
allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent-husband and dissolved
the marriage by a decree of divorce.
9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the
pregnancy of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband left her
in her parent’s house in August 1997, which was with the consent
of the respondent-husband, subsequently both of them lived at
Kukatpally, Hyderabad. In the month of July 2003, respondent-
husband left for Chennai to prosecute Ph.D. course he could not
complete his studies within a reasonable time but continued his
studies for a considerable long period. Respondent- husband was
visiting the appellant-wife till 2011 and there is no material to
show that there was any desertion. Appellant-wife went to her
parent’s house at the instance of respondent-husband as he was
leaving to Chennai for Ph.D. course, therefore such stay cannot be
said to be against the wish of the respondent-husband. The
grounds of desertion differs from the ground of cruelty. The learned
Family Court failed to appreciate the essence of desertion and
there is no evidence to that effect. There is ample evidence to show
that both wife and husband have been in touch with each other
and there is no material to show that there was any intention on
6/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
the part of the appellant-wife to prevent the respondent-husband
either from meeting her or from having cooperation with her for all
these years.
9.2. The learned Family Court gravely erred in passing the decree
of divorce in the absence of any material evidence adduced by the
respondent-husband. The respondent-husband failed to establish
the alleged cruelty. There is no justification to allege that the
appellant-wife failed to accompany the respondent-husband to
Chennai. The respondent-husband completed the Ph.D. in the year
2010. Respondent-husband was not in a position to take the
appellant-wife to Chennai in view of lack of proper accommodation.
The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the legal notices
do not operate as material evidence to establish the intention on
the part of the appellant-wife to desert the respondent-husband
and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that
the learned Family Court has properly appreciated the evidence
adduced by the parties and rightly dissolved the marriage by
assigning cogent reasons. No interference is called for. Counsel to
substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases
of (1) Kali Prasad Agarwala (Dead by LRs.) and others Vs.
7/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., and others 1 (2) Savitri Pandey Vs.
Prem Chandra Pandey 2 (3) Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma
Bhattar Sri Devi 3 (4) Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta 4 (5) Malathi
Ravi, M.D. Vs. B.V. Ravi, M.D. 5 (6) Vinod Kumar Subbiah Vs.
Saraswathi Palaniappan 6 (7) Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead)
through LRs. Vs. Muddasani Sarojana 7 (8) Narendra Vs. K.Meena 8
(9) Debananada Tamuli Vs. Kakumoni Kataky 9 (10) Kanwal Kishore
Girdhar Vs. Seema Girdhar 10 and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
11. Heard both learned counsels on record and perused the
material.
12. Now the points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the respondent-husband had made out
any case of cruelty and desertion? If so?
(ii) Whether the order passed by the learned Family
Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so,
does it require interference of this Court?
1
AIR 1989 SC 1530
2
(2002) 2 SC 73
3
AIR 2002 SC 88
4
(2002) 5 SCC 706
5
(2014) 7 SCC 640
6
AIR 2015 SC 2504
7
(2016) 12 SCC 288
8
AIR 2016 SCC 4599
9
(2022) 5 SCC 459
10
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1468
8/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
Point Nos.1 & 2 :
13. Appellant-wife and respondent-husband are legally wedded
couple and their marriage is performed on 09.02.1995 at
Ameerpet, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs, they are
blessed with a son by name Sai Krishna on 17.10.1997.
14. It is the case of the respondent-husband that his wife during
her pregnancy left his company in the month of August, 1997 and
stayed with her parents till the birth of the child, on the repeated
demands appellant-wife has joined him in the month of August,
2000 and they led happy marital life till July, 2003 at Kukatpally,
Hyderabad. In the month of July, 2003 respondent-husband left to
Chennai for doing Ph.D. in I.I.T., Madras and the appellant-wife
started residing with her parents. Respondent-husband returned
from Chennai in the year 2006 and made attempts to bring back
his wife to his fold. In the year 2006 appellant-wife secured a job
after completing her MCA.
15. Ex.P5 is the legal notice got issued by the respondent-
husband to the appellant-wife on 12.05.2011. He has narrated all
the instances in the notice and called upon the appellant-wife to
come forward seeking dissolution of marriage through process of
law within a week of receipt of the notice. It is further stated in the
9/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
notice that he has sent notice dated 27.04.2011 to the address of
R.Ramachandra, 303, Radhakrishna Residency, Madhura Nagar,
Hyderabad, the same was returned with an endorsement that
‘addressee left’ and that the appellant-wife has not informed the
respondent-husband about the change of address.
16. Ex.P9 is the Statement of Account of the respondent-
husband issued by Andhra Bank from 01.01.2003 to 18.08.2008.
17. Ex.P10 is the Proceedings of the Principal JNTU College of
Engineering, Hyderabad dated 28.07.2003 addressed to the
respondent-husband. The tenor of the letter goes to show that the
respondent-husband is sponsored for undergoing Ph.D. program
under QIP at Department of Civil Engineering I.I.T. Madras
(Chennai) for a period of three years commencing from the
academic year 2003-2004 from the date of his relief, duly executing
the bond. He is relieved of his duties in the college on the AN of
28.07.2003 to enable him to proceed to IIT, Madras (Chennai) for
undergoing Ph.D. under QIP. An order is enclosed to Ex.P10
wherein it states that (1) during the period of sponsorship of three
years, he will be treated as on duty and will be entitled to draw pay
and allowances due to his post (2) If he does not complete course
within three years period of sponsorship, the period beyond three
years shall be treated as leave to which he is eligible.
10/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
18. Ex.P11 is the copy of Sale Deed dated 13.11.1996 in the name
of appellant-wife. Ex.B12 is the letter addressed by the appellant-
wife dated 18.07.2011 to the Principal, Obul Reddy Public School,
Hyderabad requesting for issuance of caution deposit in her name,
as her husband is out of the country.
19. Ex.P13 is the Letter addressed by Innominds Software Pvt.
Ltd., dated 16.09.2015 to the Superintendant, Family Court,
Hyderabad with regard to the salary and employment particulars of
the appellant-wife.
20. The evidence of the respondent-husband as PW.1 is the
replica of his petition averments. In his cross-examination he
stated that he joined in Ph.D. Course at Chennai in July, 2003 and
completed the same in the month of July, 2010. He admitted the
E-mail sent by him under Exs.R1 to R4. The mediations held as
stated by him in para 4 of the petition are all prior to August
2000. After 2006 his cousin brothers tried for mediation. He also
tried for mediation through Mrs. Padma W/o. G.Ravindra,
Professor during the years 2005-2007. He was paying the expenses
to the appellant-wife and to his son till the year 2010. He has not
issued any legal notice calling his wife to join his company nor sent
E-mail or addressed any letter. Appellant-wife has one elder
11/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
brother and one younger brother. The accommodation provided by
the I.I.T. Madras consists of one room with attached toilet and
kitchen platform. After completion of Ph.D. the salary has
increased. He is not ready to accept the appellant-wife to join his
company even though she is ready to join him. Respondent-
husband denied the suggestion that due to the interference of his
mother, small disputes arose between him and his wife and the
terms between them were cordial till beginning of 2011 and only
after April, 2011 he has changed his attitude. He also denied the
suggestion that with a view to concentrate on Ph.D. program he
has requested the appellant-wife to stay with her parents. He
denied the suggestion that as his financial position is better than
the previous one, he want to get rid of his wife and marry other girl
at the instance of his mother and sister and that appellant-wife
never harassed him to stay as illatom son-in-law nor treated him
cruelly at any point of time nor insisted him to prepare for Group-I
Service.
21.1. PW.2- Prof. K.Viswanatha Sharma deposed that appellant-
wife left the matrimonial home of the respondent-husband and
used to reside with her parents since August, 1997 and at the
request of the respondent-husband he did mediation in the month
of May, 2000. Appellant-Wife has demanded the respondent-
12/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
husband to prepare for Group-I Services. He informed the
appellant-wife that the respondent-husband is interested in
teaching profession and she also demanded the respondent-
husband should live as ‘illatom son-in-law’. Appellant-wife has
joined the respondent-husband in the month of August, 2000 and
the couple lived together till July, 2003. Appellant-wife and her
parents have asked him to not to guide the respondent-husband
regarding Ph.D. program. Respondent-husband has left for
Chennai for pursuing Ph.D. at I.I.T. Madras and the appellant-wife
has not accompanied her husband, stayed back at her parent’s
house even though the respondent-husband was provided with
research scholars’ family accommodation in I.I.T. Madras campus.
In the year 2007 when the appellant-wife approached him and his
wife for taking suggestion regarding music training of her son, then
also she has reiterated her demand that the respondent-husband
should live with the appellant-wife as illatom son-in-law. He
advised the appellant-wife that respondent- husband is interested
to live independently. He tried to mediate and settle the issue but
the appellant-wife refused to heed his advice. The respondent-
husband is residing at 206, Anusha Enclave, Plot No.H.I.G. 11
and 12, Dharmareddy Colony, K.P.H.B., Hyderabad.
13/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
21.2. In his cross-examination he stated that in the month of
August, 1997 appellant-wife went to her parent’s house for the
purpose of delivery. He did mediation at his house at the instance
of respondent-husband. The major dispute between the couple is
that the respondent-husband should stay in the house of the
appellant-wife. From 1995 to 1997 couple lived together without
any dispute at Yousufguda, Hyderabad. He came to know about
the disputes between the couple in the year 2000. He do not know
what happened between the couple during the period 2003 and
2010. After 2000, the couple lived together at Kukatpally in the flat
of the respondent-husband till he left to Chennai for doing Ph.D.
He do not know whether any mediation was done by others.
Respondent-husband did not approach for any problem in his
marital life during 2000 to 2003. He did mediation only once in the
year 2000. He denied the suggestion that statement made in his
chief affidavit about the refusal of the appellant-wife to accompany
respondent-husband to Chennai are all false.
22.1. PW3-M.Ranga Babu deposed that appellant-wife left her
husband’s company and started residing with her parents since
August, 1997. He along with his paternal uncles Late M.Rama
Chandra Rao, M.Venkata Raju and his cousin M.Bapuji did
mediation in the month of August, 1998. Appellant-wife demanded
14/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
that the respondent-husband should prepare only for Group-I
Services. He informed the appellant-wife that respondent-husband
is interested in teaching profession. Appellant-wife demanded that
her husband should live as illatom son-in-law. He advised the
appellant-wife that the respondent-husband is interested to live
independently along with her. Appellant-wife has also demanded
that the respondent-husband should get his share in the property
from his father and should be given to her. He came to know that
the appellant-wife has joined her husband in the month of August,
2000 and they live together till July, 2003. Appellant-wife and her
parents asked him to persuade the respondent-husband should
undertake Ph.D. program at Hyderabad though he was selected for
the said program at I.I.T. Madras. Respondent-husband left for
Chennai to pursue his Ph.D. course but the appellant-wife has
refused to accompany her husband. Appellant-wife never allowed
the respondent-husband to talk to his son and did not disclose
when her son was shifted from A.M.S. Obul Reddy Public School.
In the year 2007, himself and his cousin by name M. Bapuji tried
to mediate and convince the appellant-wife to join the respondent-
husband but she reiterated her earlier demands. Appellant-wife
has left the company of the respondent-husband and started
residing with her parents since July, 2003.
15/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
22.2. In his cross-examination he stated that the respondent-
husband has commenced his Ph.D. course in 2003 and completed
in 2010 at Chennai. He went for mediation at Vengalrao Nagar as
well as at Ameerpet. Respondent-husband was provided with one
room with attached bath and lavatory and kitchen in the first year
of Ph.D. course at Chennai and in the second year respondent-
husband was provided with a Quarter. He visited Chennai in the
year 2003 and 2004. In the mediation he spoke to
Mr. Ram Chander and Mrs. Shantha Kumari who are the parents
of the appellant-wife. The mother of the appellant-wife is his
paternal aunt and they are related to him prior to the marriage.
During 2003 to 2010, there was no relationship between the
parties. He denied the suggestion that relationship between the
couple was cordial throughout till 2011 and that the respondent-
husband used to visit the appellant-wife and his son till the above
said period, he never did any mediation and he is giving false
evidence in favour of the respondent-husband as he happens to be
his cousin brother. He also denied the suggestion that there was
never a demand from the appellant-wife that the respondent-
husband should live as illatom son-in-law and appear for Group-I
Services.
16/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
23. PW.4-M.Venkata Raju chief affidavit is the same with that of
the chief of PW.3. In his cross-examination he stated that in the
year 1998 he did mediation between the couples that was the only
occasion he did mediation. After 1998, he did not meet the
appellant-wife nor visited Hyderabad. The son of the parties is Sai
Krishna but lateron the name is changed as Lalith Sai Krishna. He
denied the suggestion that he never did mediation as stated in his
chief affidavit.
24. PW.5-M.Bapuji chief affidavit examination is the same with
that of the chief affidavit of PW.3. In his cross-examination he
stated that he do not know whether it is mentioned in his chief
affidavit that he signed in Machilipatnam. Respondent-husband is
his cousin and both the parties are related to him. In the month of
August, 1997 appellant-wife went to her parent’s house for delivery
and thereafter she did not join her husband. He did mediation in
the year 1998 at the parent’s house of appellant-wife. He denied
the suggestion that he do not know anything about the affairs of
the couple and he is giving false evidence.
25. PW.6-M.Narasimha Rao is the father of the respondent-
husband, his chief affidavit is in consonance with the chief of
PW.3. In his cross-examination he stated that he do not know
personally what had happened between the couple. Appellant-wife
17/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
and her parents informed him that his son should join them as
illatom son-in-law and demanded share in his property. He do not
know the exchange of E-mails between the wife and husband after
2003 except sending money. He did mediation once in the year
1998. Appellant-wife has joined the respondent-husband in the
year 2000 later she left her husband in the year 2003. The couple
lived together till the respondent-husband left to Chennai to
pursue his Ph.D. He did not visit Hyderabad to see his grand-son
after his birth. In the year 1998, his son, daughter-in-law and her
mother came to Gudur with his grand-son. He has no personal
knowledge regarding the facts of non-cooking and other things etc.
He denied the suggestion that he never did mediation and he is
giving false evidence at the instance of his son. He also denied the
suggestion that himself and his wife are responsible for the
disputes between the couple.
26. Ex.R1 is the Mail dated 31.12.2008 sent by respondent-
husband to the appellant-wife. The tenor of the Mail goes to show
that he is proceeding to Chennai on 01.01.2009 evening and will
be back to Hyderabad on 20.01.2009 and sent a cheque for
Rs.10,000/-.
27. Ex.R2 is the another Mail dated 19.07.2010 sent by
respondent-husband to appellant-wife that he has successfully
18/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
completed his Ph.D. Viva-voce on 09.07.2010 and he can receive
his Ph.D. Degree in the convocation on 30.07.2010. He is planning
to visit I.I.T. Madras to receive Ph.D. Degree in-person and
informed his wife that if she would like to join him let him know.
28. Ex.R3 is the Letter dated 18.12.2008 addressed by the
respondent-husband to the appellant-wife about sending cheque
for Rs.10,000/-. The letter further goes to show that he is going to
Chennai on 01.01.2009 in connection with his Ph.D. work at I.I.T.
Madras.
29. Ex.R4 is the Mail dated 13.01.2004 sent by respondent-
husband to appellant-wife. The Mail states that he may come to
Hyderabad on 24.01.2004 (evening ) for one day. He is having lot of
tension and informed his wife to not to disturb him.
30.1. The evidence of the appellant-wife as RW.1 is the replica of
her counter. In her cross-examination she stated that her father is
a retired I.A.S. Officer. She studied MCA from IGNOU and M.COM
from Osmania University in correspondence course and her
husband owns a house at Kukatpally and she owns a house site at
Ayyappa Society admeasuring 300 Sq.yards, she purchased the
same from one R.Reena Reddy and she has addressed Ex.P12-
Letter. She has encashed an amount of Rs.40,000/- and
19/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
Rs.50,000/- each on eight occasions through D.Ds. in Andhra
Bank, Srinagar Colony Branch on 07.10.1996. With those amounts
only she has purchased the property covered under Ex.P11. By the
year 2003 her husband owned a house at Kukatpally. She do not
remember whether she has changed her son from Obul Reddy
Public School within one month of receipt of Ex.P5-Legal notice
dated 12.05.2011. She do not know whether her husband has
visited abroad between 2003 to 2012. Her husband is working in
Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
The letter dated 04.12.2015 states that her husband rejoined in
his duties in 2006 at JNTU after training at Chennai. She stated in
Ex.P12 that her husband is out of country. There is no
documentary proof to show that in consultation with her husband
only her son’s name is changed in school records. Her husband
after completing his Ph.D is residing in Kukatpally house.
A question is put by respondent-husband counsel to the
appellant-wife which reads as under:
Qn. Having returned from Chennai in 2006, from 2006 to
up to the issuance of Ex.P4 in the year 2011, your
husband made attempts personally and through
relatives to come and live with him and you refused
and deserted him?
Ans. The petitioner was studying in Chennai and I never
said no to join him.
20/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
30.2. Appellant-wife denied the suggestion that the respondent-
husband requested her to accompany him to Chennai during his
training period but she stayed in her parent’s house along with her
son. She also denied the suggestion that herself and her parents
insisted the respondent-husband to prepare for Group-I Services
against his interest in teaching field and without reasonable cause
she deserted her husband, treated him with cruelty. She also
denied the suggestion that respondent-husband made attempts to
bring back her to his matrimonial life but all his efforts proved
futile and that her husband has waited for better change in her till
2011, having lost hope filed the OP. She also denied the suggestion
that during her stay with her husband she used to ill-treat him
and never prepared food, always insisted him to leave his parents
and live with her parents. She denied the suggestion that she never
informed the birth of her son to her husband and he came to know
through his relatives and attended the naming ceremony. She
denied the suggestion that herself and her parents have not invited
her husband and her in-laws for the naming ceremony. She further
denied the suggestion that as her husband did not prepare for
Group-I Services as insisted by her and her parents, she developed
dissatisfaction towards her husband and deserted him, failed to
discharge her duties as a wife.
21/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
31. In Kali Prasad Agarwal, the Supreme Court held that “Where
the parties went to trial knowing fully well what they were required
to prove and they had adduced evidence of their choice in support
of the respective claims and that evidence was considered by both
Courts below, they could not be allowed to turn round and say that
the evidence should not be looked into”.
32.1. In Savitri Pandey, the Supreme Court laid down the following
principles on desertion:
(1) The actual physical separation of the parties.
(2) The specific intention to bring matrimonial
cohabitation to a permanent end.
(3) The separation must occur without the other
spouse permission
(4) There must be no valid justification for leaving
(5) The period must continue for at least two years
immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
32.2. The Supreme Court has also laid down the standards of
cruelty which reads as under:
(1) Acts that endanger physical health or cause a
reasonable apprehension of bodily injury,
(2) conduct that causes such mental pain or
suffering that it is impossible for the parties to
reasonably live together.
22/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
(3) The behaviour must induce fear in the mind of
the complainant regarding the matrimonial
relationship.
33. In Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar, the Supreme Court has clarified
the principles for establishing desertion which are as under :
(1) There must be a physical separation and the
cessation of cohabitation
(2) the party must have a clear intention to
permanently bring the matrimonial relationship to
an end.
(3) the separation must have occurred without the
agreement or against the will of the party seeking
relief.
(4) the party seeking relief must not have behaved in a
way that gave the other spouse a justifiable reason
to leave.
(5) The physical separation and the intent to desert
must persist for the entire statutory two years
period. If the deserting spouse makes a bona fide
offer to return during this time and is unreasonably
refused, there is no longer a desertion.
34. In Praveen Mehta, the Supreme Court laid down the
principles on cruelty which are as under :
(1) Mental cruelty is a state of mind and a feeling of
anguish, disappointment and frustration in one
spouse caused by the conduct of the other.
23/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
(2) Mental cruelty is rarely proven by direct evidence,
it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the
facts and circumstances of the case.
(3) The conduct must be such that it causes a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
petitioner that it is no longer safe or possible to
continue the matrimonial relationship.
(4) Courts must not look at isolated incidents of
misbehavior, instead they must assess the
cumulative impact of all relevant facts and
circumstances emerging from the evidence.
35. In Malathi Ravi, M.D., the Supreme Court laid down the
following principles on cruelty and desertion they are as under:
(1) Mental cruelty cannot be defined with Arithmetical
Exactitude.
(2) It varies based on social status, educational
background and the environment the parties live
in.
(3) What constitute quality for one couple may not be
the same for another from a different stratum of
society.
(4) Filing false, vexatious and deformatory criminal
cases against a spouse and their family amounts to
extreme mental cruelty.
(5) Desertion must be continuous for at least two years
immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
36. In Vinod Kumar Subbiah, the Supreme Court laid down the
following principles on cruelty which are as under :
24/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
(1) Verbal abuse directed at a spouse or their family such
as calling them a prostitute family is extreme
cruelty.
(2) Character assassination transcends normal marital
friction and constitute mental cruelty.
(3) Deliberately making it impossible for closed relatives
to visit or reside in the matrimonial home is considered
an act of cruelty.
37. In Muddansani Venkata Narsaiah, the Supreme Court laid
down two legal principles which are as under:
(1) Every allegation of fact in a plaint must be denied
specifically.
(2) A general denial or a claim of want of knowledge is
legally insufficient. If a fact is not specifically denied, it
is deemed to be admitted.
38. In Narendra, the Supreme Court laid down several
fundamental principles regarding mental cruelty as a ground for
divorce which reads as under :
(1) A wise persistent and unjustified effort to force her
husband to separate from his parents constitutes
mental cruelty.
(2) It is not standard practice or desirable culture in India
for a son to separate from his family upon marriage.
(3) a son has both a moral and legal obligation to
maintain and care for his parents especially if he is the
sole earner.
25/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
(4) a demand for separate residence is only acceptable if
there are justifiable strong reasons.
39. In Debananda Tamuli, the Supreme Court has laid down
several legal principles regarding desertion which reads as under:
(1) Desertion means the intentional abandonment of one
spouse by the other without the consent of the other
and without a reasonable cause.
(2) the specific intention on the part of the deserting
spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end
(3) the separation must be against the wish or without the
agreement of the deserted spouse.
(4) there must be no justifiable reason for the spouse to
leave the matrimonial home.
40. In Kanval Kishore Girdar, the High Court of Delhi laid down
the following principles on mental cruelty:
(1) Parental elimination is a grave mental cruelty. Efforts
to erode the natural bond between a child and the
estranged parent are seen as a tool for revenge.
(2) Using a minor as a weapon or tool to get even with a
spouse is unjustifiable regardless of the severity of the
matrimonial differences.
(3) Long separation, false police reports, unsubstantiated
allegations of adultery and parental alienation
collectively constitute mental cruelty.
41. The primary ground raised by the respondent-husband for
grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty is that appellant-wife did
26/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
not join him at I.I.T. Madras and he came down to Hyderabad in
the year 2006, made several attempts to bring back his wife to him
despite mediations appellant-wife did not mend her behavior and
did not comply the legitimate demand of the respondent-husband
to live with him and discharge her marital obligations, ill-treated
him and never prepared food for him and always insisted to appear
for Group-I Services and also insisted him to live as illatom son-in-
law and did not allow him to talk to his child. Except the testimony
of the respondent-husband, there is no other evidence placed by
him. PWs.2 to 5 evidence was with regard to the mediations held
by them prior to the respondent-husband leaving to pursue his
Ph.D. at I.I.T. Madras. The witnesses further spoke that appellant-
wife never allowed the respondent-husband to speak to his son and
one mediation was held in the year 2007. PW.6 is the father of the
respondent-husband, in his cross-examination he stated that he
do not know personally what has happened between the couple.
PW.6 went on to say that it is the appellant-wife and her father
informed him that his son should join them as illatom son-in-law
and he went to the parent’s house of the appellant-wife on one
occasion for mediation that to in the year 1998. The defence taken
by the respondent-husband with regard to the cruelty is not proved
by cogent evidence and it does not fall within the illustrations given
27/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh11
(3 Judge Bench). The learned trial Court has misread the evidence
of the respondent-husband with that of the witnesses examined by
him and wrongly came to a conclusion that respondent-husband
has proved cruelty.
42. In so far as desertion is concerned respondent-husband
stated in the petition that appellant-wife deserted him for all the
five years. Ex.R1 is the Mail dated 31.12.2008 sent by respondent-
husband to the appellant-wife that he is proceeding to Chennai
tomorrow i.e., 01.01.2009 and will be back to Hyderabad on
20.01.2009. Ex.R2 is dated 19.07.2010 which shows that
respondent-husband has successfully completed his Ph.D. Viva-
Voce on 09.07.2010. Respondent-husband has also admitted in
his cross-examination that he has completed his Ph.D. in the
month of July, 2010. As per Ex.R2 convocation is scheduled on
30.07.2010. In view of the admission made by the respondent-
husband that he completed his Ph.D. in the year 2010 and he has
taken seven years to complete his Ph.D. course. Respondent-
husband has filed O.P. on 15.07.2011 and the same is numbered
on 19.07.2011, the period of desertion of continuous period of two
years is not proved by the respondent-husband. Appellant-wife
11
MANU/SC/1386/2007 : (2007) 4 SCC 511
28/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
stated in her cross-examination that she did not stop the
respondent-husband to join him and that her husband is free to
see her son.
43. The learned trial Court has failed to note the admissions
made by the respondent-husband in his cross-examination with
regard to completing his course in the year 2010 and PW.2 stated
in his cross-examination that he do not know what has happened
between the parties during the period 2003 and 2010. Respondent-
husband stated that he was provided with one room with attached
bath, lavatory and kitchen which fact is also stated by PW.3 in his
cross-examination. PW.3 went on to say that in the second year
respondent-husband was provided with Quarters.
44. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the pleadings of
the parties in right perspective with that of the evidence placed on
record coupled with Ex.R2 and erroneously held that respondent-
husband has proved cruelty and desertion, granted divorce. We are
of the view that the learned Family Court findings are perverse and
the same are liable to be set aside in view of the reasons above.
45. The decisions cited by respondent-husband counsel are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the
29/29 KL,J & BRMR,J
FCA_82_2016
ratio of those cases would not assist his case in any
manner. Hence they are not applicable.
46. FCA.No.82 of 2016 is allowed and the order passed by the
learned Family Court at Hyderabad in OP No.903 of 2011 dated
31.03.2016 is set aside, consequently the O.P. filed by the
respondent-husband is dismissed without costs.
Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous
petition/petitions stands closed.
____________________
K.LAKSHMAN, J
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
29th APRIL, 2026
PLV
