The Telangana High Court has firmly upheld a family court's decision to deny a divorce to a woman, concluding that her marriage is not irretrievably broken down. The court's judgment, delivered on November 20, highlighted the couple's continued cohabitation and the wife's failure to provide substantial evidence for her serious allegations of cruelty and desertion.
Court's Rationale and Key Observations
Justices K Lakshman and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, presiding over the bench, emphasized that a marriage cannot be dissolved based on mere allegations, especially when the parties are still living under the same roof. The court noted a significant detail: the couple traveled together from Khammam to Hyderabad for the court hearing, sharing a bus and arriving at the court premises simultaneously. This observation strongly contradicted the wife's claim of desertion.
The judges stated, "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." They further underscored the legal requirement for the appellant to "plead and prove the cruelty and desertion by producing relevant evidence, both oral and documentary."
Background of the Marital Dispute
The couple's marriage was an arranged union between close relatives in 1986, with the wife being the husband's niece. The marriage produced two sons. The wife initiated the legal battle for divorce in 2012, filing a petition that contained several grave accusations.
She alleged that her husband, now 61, was addicted to "bad habits" and was involved in an illegal relationship with an employee of their jointly run "Hanuman Package Drinking Water Plant." Her petition also claimed that he demanded money, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, damaged their business, and even attempted to end her life. These events, she claimed, forced her out of their shared home in May 2011.
Scrutiny of Evidence and Dismissal of Claims
After the family court dismissed her petition in 2014, the 55-year-old woman moved the High Court in 2015. The High Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found the family court's order to be "reasoned and well founded."
The court dismantled the cruelty claim, stating that "Petty issues between the parties are not cruel acts. Wear and tear between the spouses cannot be considered as cruelty." Regarding the allegation of an illicit relationship, the judges pointed out a clear lack of independent evidence, as the wife had not examined any witness to substantiate this charge.
Ultimately, the High Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal. It also took note of the family's current circumstances, observing that the couple's elder son is married and lives with them, and they are actively seeking a marriage alliance for their younger son, further indicating that the family unit remains functional.
