The Telangana High Court said the Family Court in Hyderabad can’t give a divorce decree for cruelty without clear complaints and enough proof. This decision came after a wife appealed against a divorce decree from the Family Court.Top of Form
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P.K. Sujana observed, “… the Court below erred in granting divorce to the respondent/husband by dissolving the marriage of the appellant/wife with him solemnized on 17.02.2005 on the ground of cruelty. As discussed supra, the Family Court cannot grant decree of divorce without there being a pleading and cogent evidence. The Court cannot grant divorce on the ground of cruelty without pleading and proving the same.”Top of Form
Senior Advocate G. Pedda Babu served as the legal representative for the appellant (wife), while Advocate Vishnu Prasad Reddy presented the case on behalf of the respondent (husband).
Case Summary: The respondent, acting as the petitioner, initiated legal proceedings under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a divorce decree on grounds of desertion against the appellant in the Family Court. The marriage, conducted in 2005 through Hindu rituals and officially registered, saw an initial cohabitation period of around one month, followed by temporary residence in the USA, where they were blessed with a child. However, subsequent conflicts led the husband to claim desertion by the wife, leading to the filing of a petition in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court in Medak, citing desertion as the basis for divorce.
According to the legal requirement for seeking divorce based on desertion, there is a mandatory condition of continuous abandonment for at least two years before filing the petition. In this case, the period of desertion did not meet the stipulated two years. As a result, the husband withdrew the desertion plea and, through an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, requested permission to amend the Original Petition. The proposed amendment sought to introduce Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, incorporating cruelty as an alternative ground for divorce. The Family Court granted approval for this amendment, leading the wife to appeal the decision in the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts of the case noted, “It is relevant to note that the Family Court in the impugned order gave a specific finding that the respondent/husband failed to prove the said illegal intimacy developed by the appellant/wife with her brother-in-law Mr. Srinivasa Rao.”
The main issue that was to be decided by the Court was whether the Family Court is justified in granting divorce to the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty which was not pleaded and proved.
“… the respondent/husband had filed the aforesaid O.P. initially on the ground of desertion. However, he has withdrawn the said ground. There is no pleading with regard to cruelty. As rightly held by this Court in the order dated 22.09.2014 in CRP No.1249 of 2014 that not a word was said about the cruelty in the pleadings, either in the original form or through the said amendment, thus, trial Court committed error in observing that no prejudice will be caused if the amendment is to be permitted. Thus, the application filed by the respondent/husband vide I.A.No.619 of 2013 seeking to amend the prayer to include ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed”, said the Court.
The court said the husband couldn’t change his request during the appeal. So, the High Court thought the Family Court’s decision to grant a divorce because of cruelty was a mistake.
Because of this, the High Court agreed with the appeal and canceled the Family Court’s order.
