45 Days of Marriage, 11 Years of Litigation: Telangana High Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Irretrievable Breakdown to Husband

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)

Garikapati Siva Kumar (Appellant) Vs. Garikapati Jayalakshmi (Respondent)_TSHC.pdf

Download PDF • 4.25MB

Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.

---

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage & Cruelty — Telangana High Court in Garikapati Siva Kumar (Appellant) Vs. Garikapati Jayalakshmi (Respondent)

Appeal: Appeal filed by the husband challenging the order and decree dated 15.03.2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 22 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the wife.

Brief Facts: Marriage was solemnized on 22.05.2013 at Kuntlarami Reddy function hall, Chatanpally, as per Hindu customs. Soon after marriage, the couple went to Vaddvalli village, where the husband showed his willingness to have physical attachment with the wife, but the wife avoided the same. The wife harassed the husband by maintaining silence without talking. She was always murmuring in her own method according to her own choice. The husband took a house on rent at Anakapalli to lead a conjugal life, but the wife refused to come and did not cooperate with her pungent nature. The husband’s family members and the elders advised the wife to lead a conjugal life with better hope, but she did not heed their advice. The wife left the husband’s company on 07.07.2013. The husband issued registered notices to the wife on 21.05.2014 and 24.06.2014, respectively, and she received the same and gave a false reply. As such, he filed the present petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and mental disorder.

The wife filed a counter stating that at the time of marriage, her parents gave five lakh cash and also fifty thousand Adapaduchu katnam to the sister of the husband. During the marriage, twenty tulas of gold articles were presented by her parents, which are in the custody of the husband and his mother. The husband behaved like a psycho with the wife and created terror on the very first night. The wife tolerated the same and continued her marital life with the husband. The marriage of the husband with the wife is against his will, and the husband and his family used to harass the wife, saying that she is not match to the husband and demanded additional dowry. During the nights, the husband used to behave with the wife peculiarly like a beast and used to talk indecent manner like anything.

The husband and his family members asked the wife to sell away the Ac.3.00 land in Kothavaripalem and gave the amount to them to start a business. When the husband intended to put up a separate family at Anakapally, he demanded her to bring two lakh rupees. Her father requested some time, but the husband, his mother and his sister had beaten the wife on 08.04.2014. On 12.04.2014, the husband left the wife in the house of his relatives in Hyderabad. Now, the wife is ready to husband’s company. She had not committed any cruelty against the husband. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

To prove his case, the husband got examined PWs 1 to 3, and no document was marked. On behalf of the wife, she got examined RWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Ex. R1 and R2. Based on the evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the O.P.

The husband submitted that the Trial Court did not observe the departed relationship of husband and wife since their marriage. He further submitted that though the husband alleged that the wife had been suffering from mental disorder, the Trial Court did not take any steps to send the wife for medical examination. He further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have seen the significance of evidence of PWs 2 and 3, but appreciated the evidence of RW.1 and her mother RW.2. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

On the other hand, the wife submitted that the Trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required from this Court.

The trial Court dismissed the H.M.O.P. based on three grounds (i) There is no material to prove the mental illness of the wife (ii) The husband did not take the wife for any medical examination (iii) The husband did not examine any Medical Expert to show that the wife took treatment for her mental disorder.

Findings of the Hon’ble High Court:

The husband contended that after their marriage, he showed his willingness to engage in marital relations with the wife. However, the wife avoided such interactions, expressing her aversion to physical intimacy. She refused to cooperate, pushed him off the bed, and even showed disapproval towards his attempts at embracing her. From the very beginning of their matrimonial life, the wife declined to cohabit with him. Subsequently, the husband observed that she was suffering from a mental illness. The wife, in her counter alleged that the husband behaved like a psycho with the wife and created terror on the very wedding night. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the wife admitted that her marriage was not consummated. Therefore, the allegations made by the wife against the husband are irrelevant. The wife further admitted that, prior to marriage she sought treatment from a neuro doctor at

Asha Hospital.

During the cross-examination, the wife admitted that neither she nor her parents informed the husband or his parents about her health issues prior to the marriage. She also revealed that the first night could not take place due to menstruation, and the marriage was not consummated. Even if her claims are assumed to be true, there is no explanation as to why she did not cohabit with her husband after her menstruation ended. She further stated that before the marriage, she had received treatment from a neurologist at Asha Hospital. According to the pleadings, the wife left the husband on 07.07.2013 and has made no effort to reconcile with him since. Moreover, she filed a domestic violence case (DVC) only after the husband initiated divorce proceedings. In the said case, she mentioned that her father consulted medical officers at NIMS Hospital about her condition, and she was prescribed medication in 2004 and 2005. She further stated that she is currently unwell and had once asked her father-in-law to bring "Trinexyphenidyl hydrochloride" 2 mg tablets when she visited her in-laws' house in Sathennapally.

The Trial Court in DVC observed that the evidence deposed by PW.1 (i.e. wife herein) is beyond the pleadings of her petition, and the entire cross-examination reveals that the PW.1 is suffering from mental ill-health and could not understand the questions put to her. She stated that she does not know the nature of the present case, and she did not approach any Court against her husband to file any case. The Trial Court further observed that “It is difficult to ascertain as to whether PW.1 could lead marital life with her husband happily at least for some period and whether PW.1 has led marital life with her husband at the first place or not. In such circumstances, PW.1 is not entitled to any relief under this Act merely because she married the husband. It is also creating doubt on the PW.1 and her parents that without disclosing about her mental health condition, she was given in marriage to the husband even affecting his mental health.” Accordingly, the said DVC was dismissed. Against the dismissal order in DVC, the wife preferred Criminal Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2022, but the same was also dismissed.

After the marriage, whenever the husband intended to have physical intimacy with his wife, she has avoided the same for one or other reasons. Admittedly, the parties have been living separately since 2013, and now we are in 2024. So, their marriage has broken down irretrievably. Because of her acts and behaviour for a long period, the husband finds it extremely difficult to live with her any longer in view of her mental cruelty. In the circumstances, they cannot reconcile for matrimonial life. On these grounds, the husband is entitled to get divorce from his wife.

The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. Suman Beniwal dealt with waiver of mandatory period of six months for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In that case, the parties had been living separately for almost 14 months and about soon after three days of marriage. The petition was preferred seeking the relief of divorce by way of mutual consent. First motion was granted. Application moved for waiver for six months statutory period, however, was rejected. In challenge made against thereto, High Court refused to grant the relief. The Supreme Court held as follows:

“… … … If the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the spouses have been living apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcile their differences and have mutually decided to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses to move on with the life.

19. Where there is a chance of reconciliation, however slight, the cooling period of six months from the date of filling of the divorce petition should be enforced. However, if there is no possibility of reconciliation, it would be meaningless to prolong the agony of the parties to the marriage. Thus, if the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the spouses have been living apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcile their differences and have mutually decided  to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses to move on with the life.”

In the present case, the husband seeking divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty are made out. Especially, considering that the marriage failed to progress from the very beginning over the course of nearly 11 years. Consequently, we find that the marital relationship has irreparably deteriorated and cannot be restored. Thus, the facts stated in the above case are squarely applicable to the present case.

In another case, in the case of Poonam Vs. Surender Kumar wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

“8. We had in a recent judgment analyzed the issue arising from the unwillingness of one of the parties to go in for a divorce and whether in that scenario this Court would invoke powers Under Section 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage in Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal Civil Appeal Nos. 4984-4985/2021 decided on 13.09.2021. In the facts of the case, we had found both cruelty made out as also the marriage not having taken off from the very inception for almost 20 years, somewhat similar in the present case. We thus observed that there was disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage and went out to notice that there was no initial integration itself which would really allow disintegration afterwards. The position is not different in this case. We are thus of the view that it is appropriate that the parties formally part company having actually lived apart for about 19 years.”

In the case on hand also, the willingness of the husband to go for divorce on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty are made out as also the marriage not having taken off from the very inception for almost 11 years. We, thus, find that there was a disintegration of marital unity, which cannot be reunited.

In view of foregoing discussion, the C.M.A. is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside order and decree dated 15.03.2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 22 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.