The Telangana High Court ruled that ordinary “wear and tear” of married life cannot be treated as cruelty for divorce. Allegations must be supported by clear, convincing evidence before a marriage can be legally dissolved.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has refused to dissolve a marriage, ruling that serious allegations such as cruelty and desertion must be proved with concrete evidence and not merely stated in pleadings. The judgment reaffirms the high evidentiary threshold required in matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The decision was made in Family Court Appeal No. 74 of 2015, where the wife challenged the decree of the Family Court at Khammam that had earlier dismissed her petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act.
Background of the Dispute
The spouses married in 1986 and are close relatives; the respondent is the appellant’s maternal uncle. The couple has two sons and jointly manages a packaged drinking water business.
The wife approached the Family Court alleging that:
- Her husband maintained a relationship with a female employee of their water plant,
- He was addicted to vices and harassed her for money,
- He threw her out of the matrimonial home,
- and he deliberately damaged machinery at the business.
She sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The husband denied every allegation, claiming that the marriage deteriorated due to the wife’s temperament and her decisions relating to family property. He said he had no intention to abandon the marriage and wanted to continue living together.
Arguments Before the Court
Appellant-Wife
- Respondent allegedly engaged in an illicit affair with employee Vankayala Kavitha
- Alleged harassment for money and physical abuse
- Claimed that she was expelled from the house on May 18, 2011
- Accused the respondent of damaging machinery and property at the Hanuman Package Drinking Water Plant
Respondent-Husband
- Allegations of cruelty and desertion were strongly denied
- Claimed the appellant possessed an adamant nature and attempted suicide once
- Asserted that he acquired property through years of hard work and even registered it in the appellant’s name
- Allegedly, the appellant later tried to sell properties to third parties, forcing him to file a suit for an injunction
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined the material presented and concluded that although the allegations were serious, they were not supported by evidence. The wife did not produce independent witnesses for the alleged incidents. She also did not examine the employee with whom the affair was claimed, nor did she produce medical records, documents, or corroborating testimony regarding harassment or eviction. Even the claim relating to property disputes and supposed property damage was not substantiated with records or testimony.
The Bench observed that courts cannot treat accusations as facts and that a marriage cannot be annulled solely on emotionally charged allegations. Cruelty, the Court emphasized, must be established through reliable evidence. Normal conflicts or unpleasantness within marital life are not enough to constitute legal cruelty.
The Court reiterated the legal standard:
“Cruelty is not defined in any statute. The spouse alleging cruelty must plead and prove it with relevant evidence.”
Further, the Court emphasized:
“Petty marital discord cannot constitute cruelty. Normal wear and tear of married life is not a ground for divorce.”
A key moment in the case occurred when the High Court interacted with the spouses in person. It became clear that the couple continued to live in the same house, travelled to the court together from Khammam, and jointly managed their business. Their sons and daughter-in-law also lived in the same household. These details convinced the Court that the allegation of desertion was incompatible with the reality of their living arrangement.
Although the wife expressed unwillingness to continue in the marriage, the husband affirmed his desire to maintain the relationship, citing the welfare of their children and their long marriage.
The Court observed:
“On mere allegations—without evidence—neither the Family Court nor this Court can dissolve the marriage. The parties are staying together, and the marriage is not irretrievably broken down.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Family Court’s order was “well-reasoned and does not warrant interference.”
Case Title:
Rayala Seshu Laxmi vs Rayala Vishnu Murthy
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.74 OF 2015
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mental Cruelty
