Marital Cruelty & Abuse|Telangana High Court|Anabathula Rajashekar V. Vangari Sushma (2025)|Physical Abuse ‘Bordering on Depravity’:Wife’s Divorce Confirmed,Dismissing Husband’s Attempt to Play Victim
- DTN
- Dec 8
- 10 min read
Confused about where your case stands?
Get a Preparatory Assessment : Factual, Sharp and Tailored to your situation
📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment.
Download the Visual Carousel (PDF)
Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.
Telangana High Court - Family Court Appeal (FCA) NO: 115/2024 - Date of Order : 03.09.2025
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar
Anabathula Rajashekar (Appelant) Vs. Vangari Sushma (Respondent)
Appeal: Appeal by husband in connection with the impugned order dated 26-03-2024 passed by the Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Trial Court') in O.P.No.1716 of 2019 filed by the wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') to grant decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the appellant (husband), which is performed on 23-08-2018.
Brief Facts: The Trial Court vide order dated 26-03-2024 allowed the OP holding that both parties are equally responsible to bring the marriage to an end, though physically and medically fit to lead conjugal life. There are several differences of opinions, disparities and incompatibility between the parties. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the marriage became a fiction and their marriage is dried and died for all purposes.
Contentions of the husband:
The husband contended that he was a Software Engineer working in a private firm. He contends that prior to the marriage, when an engagement ceremony was performed on 05-07-2018, during talks the wife expressed her reluctance to have children and concerns on her physical fitness, body shape and overall appearance due to motherhood while the husband respected her decisions and career ambitions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining balanced approach towards marital life.
The husband further contended that subsequent to the marriage dated 23-08-2018, the wife joined the husband at his house and informed the husband that she was suffering from dengue fever from the last 3-4 days and therefore unwell. The said ailment continued for about 2 weeks, during which period, the reception also took place. After a week, when first night was arranged on 31-08-2018 at the house of the husband, the wife was sent with a glass of milk into the room where the ceremony was arranged. The wife expressed her non-recovery from dengue fever, and hence, the husband did not insist the wife to consummate in view of her illness. In the initial two months, the wife displayed a notable reluctance to physical contact, attributing it to shyness or the newness of their relationship owing it to the transition from parental home to marital home. The husband retained hope that the wife would eventually adjust and treated her with much love and affection.
The husband further contended that driven by love, affection and care, the husband had regularly taken the responsibility of dropping off and pick up the wife from her office, and upon learning of the wife's participation in chess tournament in Mumbai, he expressed his sincere desire to accompany her to offer unwavering support and encouragement throughout the competition, whereas the husband was insulted by the wife before her colleagues in Mumbai.
The husband further contended that he planned for a trip to Shillong, Meghalaya for 5 days, during which time, both of them thoroughly enjoyed. As the time elapsed, the wife consistently avoided consummation, ultimately leading to filing of the OP before the learned Trial Court after a period of 1 year from the marriage, to cover up her faults alleging impotency and cruelty.
The husband further contended that the wife's doubts regarding the husband's potency, despite undergoing a medical checkup for the male potency from a qualified Urologist with a certificate issuing his potency, had strained their marriage. The wife's accusation of impotency was disproved by the medical reports confirming the husband's physical fitness.
The husband further contended that the wife deliberately avoided consummation of marriage for over an year and left the matrimonial home after one-year mark, suggesting pre-planned strategy to file for divorce and potentially false cases.
Contentions of the wife:
The wife contended that her parents paid an amount of Rs.7,32,000/- towards dowry. The husband also demanded the wife to pay Rs.25,000/- p.m. from her salary. However, after discussions, the husband and his family members agreed for receiving Rs.15,000/- p.m. from the wife. The wife paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. starting from 01-09-2018 continuously for about more than a year till she was sent out from the house.
The wife further submitted that despite her insistence, the husband had not consummated their marriage, never behaved like a potential husband both mentally and physically. The husband also used to physically harass the wife by hitting her, pulling her hair and pouring hot oil on her hands and later apologising for the behaviour.
The wife further contended that the suspicious nature of the husband lead her to doubt him at every instance apart from usage of abusive language.
The wife further contended that within a week of marriage, the husband demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the wife as well as her parents, which caused them utter shock. Thereafter the husband kept demanding money on many such occasions repeatedly. The wife later came to know that the husband is used to consume alcohol and also drugs.
The wife contended that she proposed to go to Shillong, Meghalaya etc. where the estimated expenditure was Rs.50,000/-, for which the husband demanded her to pay Rs.30,000/-, and even at the said places, the husband used to consume alcohol and used to sleep claiming tiredness. Subsequently, the wife left for her parental home. The husband again demanded for Rs.50,000-60,000/- when the wife blocked his number. Later the wife filed for mutual divorce instead of going through the rigid litigation process, which was rejected by the husband.
Points for consideration before the trial court:
1) Whether the wife is entitled for decree of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act as prayed for?
2) To what relief ?
On behalf of the wife, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of the husband, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. Through Court, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. X-1 and X-2 were marked.
During cross-examination of wife, it was elicited that she completed her B.Tech., in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from G. Narayanamma Institute of College in the year 2015 and working as an employee in Airport Authority of India. Her father retired from ECIL as Technical Manager in the month of March, 2017. The husband is working as Software Engineer by the date of marriage. During her cross-examination, she deposed that she does not want to give her present address due to fear that the husband will attack her and her family. She further deposed that she did not lodge any police complaint from 25-08-2019 till the date of her giving evidence for not having marital relationship after the marriage from 23-08-2018 till 25-08-2019 and did not inform either to Bharat Matrimony People or one Mallesham, who settled the marriage about non-consummation of her marriage.
However, she further revealed that she is not ready to rejoin the matrimonial life with the husband even if he forgets the entire past and forgives her for all her acts and offers her to take back into his matrimonial life. She further deposed that she has not taken any medical treatment when the husband attacked her with apple cutting knife, when her parents came to take her for celebrations of Vinayakachavithi festival.
On perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the wife Exs. A-1 to A-12 as well as Ex. A-9 reply notice dated 03-11-2019 issued by husband through his counsel, wherein it was mentioned as "my client not having the physical satisfaction with his wife but with a lot of patience he has waited because he loves his wife unconditionally she avoided sex for 3 months with all wrong assumptions she started to ask him to consult a doctor by saying he is not potent, after she left home on 25th August 2019". Ex.A-9 further refers that "my client has requested her to take him to the hospital and to clarify if she has doubts on him but she rejected that proposal in one ground or the other". However, all the contentions were denied by the wife. The main ground urged by the wife for obtaining divorce from the husband is that he failed to perform sexual intercourse with her in order to consummate the marriage apart from subjecting her to cruelty.
During cross-examination of P.W.2, who is the father of the wife, he stated that the husband and wife have travelled to various places across the country, and he came to know on 19-08-2019 that his daughter (P.W.1) is not happy in marital life and he is not ready to send his daughter for medical checkup and counselling. He is not residing in the address shown in the chief-affidavit due to life threat to him and his daughter.
Coming to the examination of R.W.1, the husband, who deposed that during nuptial ceremony night when he asked the wife to sleep with him, there was no cooperation from her. A perusal of the examination of R.W.1 reveals that there were about 50 such incidents which were not agreed by the wife. The learned Trial Court held that for the sake of denial only, R.W.1 is denying for divorce and the same is also nothing but amounts to cruelty.
The evidence of C.W.1, who is one of the Member of Medical Board and Doctor deposed that he is an Urologist and working in Gandhi Hospital from 2007, and that the husband was examined by the Department of Urology, Physician, Surgeon, Endocrinologist, Urologist, Forensic Medicine and advised routine investigations i.e. CVE, CBP, ESR, B.L. Sugar, X-Ray Chest, PA-View, Sr. Electrolyte, Sr. Creatine, ECG and Ultra Sound Abdomen. C.W.1 also performed one injection test on 08-09-2023 and pipe test on the husband and also examined as to whether his secondary sexual character are well developed. The medical report was marked as Ex. X-1, which specifies that the husband has no problem. However, Ex. B-1 was marked subject to objection by the wife.
With respect to evidence of C.W.2, who deposed that she is a Gynecologist in Gandhi Hospital, that she along with other Medical Board members examined and investigated the wife and evaluated by Physical Surgeon, Obstetric and Genealogy and other routine investigation. Ex.X-2 Medical Report was marked stating that the wife is medically fit for leading marital life.
The Trial Court held that the evidence of C.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs. B-1, X-1 and X-2
discloses that both parties are physically and medically fit to lead marital life. However, the Trial Court held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the contents of Exs. A-1 to A12 and the admission in the evidence of R.W.1 clearly and clinchingly establishes that the acts of the husband caused severe mental agony to the wife.
The Trial Court further held that the refusal of the husband for mutual consent decree suggested by the wife also amounts to cruelty. Moreover, the husband's inaction to issue any legal notice for restitution of conjugal life or to file a counter-claim for restitution establishes that only for the sake of denial, the husband is denying for divorce which also amounts to cruelty.
The Trial Court also held that the parties are living separately from 2019 and there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and marriage has irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that both parties i.e. wife and husband are equally responsible to bring the marriage to an end and the record further disclosed that though both are physically and medically fit to lead conjugal life, they did not try to resolve the issues and there are several differences of opinions, disparities, incompatibility between them, and that the acts and conduct of the husband caused severe mental agony to the wife therefore held that the marriage became a fiction and their marriage is dried and died for all purposes.
Hon’ble High Court’s observations:
The marriage especially under the ancient Hindu tradition emphasizes it's indissoluble nature which is a sacred sacrament, a holy union between a man and woman intended to lead the life by supporting each other in joy and adversity. It is regarded as a holy sanskar, symbolizing the eternal bond of companionship, duty and mutual respect between husband and wife. The institution of marriage is considered to be the very foundation of family life and social stability, wherein not only the spouses but also families and future generations are bound together in dharma.
It is not a contract which can be dissolved under the terms of contract, but a solemn union demanding mutual trust, respect and sacrifice for life. The sanctity of this institution rests upon the co-operation of the spouses. For it is only though harmony, understanding and companionship that the true purpose of marriage can be fulfilled. Thereby, justifying judicial intervention to formally dissolve what has already ceased to exist in substance, notwithstanding the absence specific statutory provision for irretrievable breakdown as ground for granting divorce.
Family Courts are enjoined to function with a humane approach, guided by the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence rather than rigid adversarial practice. So that procedural formalities do not eclipse the paramount judicial duty of upholding human dignity and mitigating the pain and distress that inevitably accompany disputes touching upon the sanctity of family life.
Upon considering the present facts and circumstances and also after conducting in-camera proceedings, this Court feels that unlike the procedural laws and penal laws which are enacted by the legislation, the Family Law being a welfare legislation, the same cannot be executed forcibly. It is necessary to keep in mind about the emotions of the respective parties to a matrimonial dispute before passing an order or decree. Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to interact with the parties jointly and separately on two occasions by way of in-camera proceedings.
During the in-camera proceedings conducted, the wife categorically made it clear that there is absolutely no possibility of any compromise or settlement between the parties and that she is wholly averse to any kind of marital reconciliation with the husband. The only reason given by the husband that he has a 'fantasy' about the concept of marriage and desire to reunite with his wife on account of certain 'happy memories' as per the evidence as well as during interactions, this contention cannot be believed.
The allegations made by the wife against the husband are extremely serious in nature including allegations of physical abuse and bordering on depravity. According to the wife, it was unbearable, which was revealed by her during in-camera proceedings as she submitted painfully about the severe mental / physical agony from the husband from the date of marriage. Although the personal interaction with the parties reveal the above facts, we thought it prudent to carefully examine the impugned order and the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Trial Court by way of abundant caution.
Even upon perusal of the entire evidence thoroughly, considering the stand taken by the wife regarding irreconcilable differences between the parties coupled with the allegations of physical abuse and cruelty meted out by the husband as well as the evidence relied upon by the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with or set aside the impugned order.
Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The parties are at liberty to lead their respective life independently, since the marriage is broken irrevocably.
Comments