© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Telangana High Court last week upheld a family court decision on a woman’s divorce petition, emphasising her failure to substantiate her serious allegations of cruelty and desertion and noting the couple’s continued cohabitation.
Justices K Lakshman and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy held in their November 20 judgment, “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.” The court also held that “the appellant has to plead and prove the cruelty and desertion by producing relevant evidence, both oral and documentary”.
The woman moved the high court in 2015 after the family court dismissed her petition for divorce in 2014. The high court affirmed the family court’s decision, finding the impugned order “reasoned and well founded” and concluded that the wife had failed to make a case for interference. It therefore dismissed her appeal.
The court noted that the marriage, performed in 1986 as an arranged match between close relatives (the woman is the man’s niece), produced two sons. The wife filed for divorce in 2012, alleging the husband was addicted to bad habits, had an illegal relationship with an employee, demanded money, and physically and mentally harassed her. She also alleged that he damaged their jointly run “Hanuman Package Drinking Water Plant” business and tried to end her life, resulting in her being forced out of the house in May 2011.
The woman is 55 years old, and her husband is 61.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented and noted that she had not examined any witness to prove that the respondent had an illicit relationship with an employee of the water plant. The judges found a clear lack of independent evidence for the most serious charges.
Dismantling the cruelty claim, the court stated, “Cruelty is a serious allegation which the appellant has to plead and prove. Petty issues between the parties are not cruel acts. Wear and tear between the spouses cannot be considered as cruelty.”
Countering the allegation of desertion, the judgment detailed, “During the course of interaction, they have informed us that they are staying in the very same house along with their sons and daughter-in-law… They came to the bus stand on the very same two-wheeler driven by the respondent, and they came to this Court from Khammam to Hyderabad in the very same bus. They came to the Court together.”
The court concluded that the marriage was “not irretrievably broken down,” noting that the couple’s elder son was married and living with them and that they were currently seeking an alliance for their younger son.
