7-year separation for PhD at IIT not ‘desertion’: Telangana High Court overturns decade-old divorce decree
Shortly after completing his PhD, the husband sent legal notices and moved the family court in 2011 seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion, the Telangana High Court noted.
Most of the testimony relied on by the husband related to older disputes, many of them dating back to before he left for Chennai, the Telangana High Court pointed out. (AI-generated image)
Telangana High Court news: A seven-year PhD journey at IIT Madras that physically separated a couple could not by itself dissolve their marriage, the Telangana High Court has ruled, setting aside a decade-old divorce decree and holding that academic distance is not legal desertion.
Allowing an appeal filed by the wife, a bench of Justices K Lakshman and B R Madhusudhan Rao set aside a 2016 order of the Hyderabad family court which had granted divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
“We are of the view that the learned Family Court findings are perverse and the same are liable to be set aside,” the Telangana High Court said on April 29.
The couple married in February 1995 and had a son two years later. Their relationship, as the court records show, went through phases – periods of living together interspersed with stretches of separation.
Things took a decisive turn in 2003 when the husband moved to Chennai to pursue a PhD at IIT Madras. What was meant to be a three-year programme stretched to seven, ending only in 2010.
During those years, the wife stayed back in Hyderabad with their child. That arrangement, which may have seemed practical at the time, later became the cornerstone of the husband’s case that she had effectively deserted him by refusing to relocate.
He also accused her of being unreasonable, alleging that she pressured him over career choices and family arrangements.
Story continues below this ad
Justices K Lakshman and B R Madhusudhan Rao said there was little to show sustained or serious misconduct in the marriage during the years that mattered.
From notices to divorce
In 2011, shortly after completing his PhD, the husband sent legal notices and moved the family court seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion.
The family court accepted his version and, in March 2016, granted a decree of divorce.
But the wife challenged that decision in the Telangana High Court, arguing that the separation was never intended to be permanent and that they had remained in touch throughout.
What high court found
Going through the evidence, the Telangana High Court was not convinced by the husband’s claims.
On desertion, the judges focused on a basic legal requirement: the separation must continue for at least two years immediately before filing the divorce case.
Here, the timeline simply did not add up. The husband completed his PhD in July 2010 and filed for divorce in July 2011, well short of the required period.
There was also material on record, including emails and financial support, that suggested the relationship, though strained, had not completely broken down.
On cruelty, the Telangana High Court noted that most of the testimony relied on by the husband related to older disputes, many of them dating back to before he left for Chennai.
There was little to show sustained or serious misconduct during the years that mattered.
Except the testimony of the husband, “there is no other evidence”, the Telangana High Court observed, pointing out the lack of independent proof.
A key factor that weighed with the court was the wife’s consistent stand that she was willing to live with her husband and had never intended to end the relationship. She also told the court that she had not stopped him from meeting their son.
Story continues below this ad
That, the bench said, cuts against the idea of “desertion”, which in law requires not just physical separation but a clear intention to permanently walk away from the marriage.
In the end, the Telangana High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the family court’s order, and dismissed the husband’s divorce petition.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
Justices K Lakshman and B R Madhusudhan Rao said there was little to show sustained or serious misconduct in the marriage during the years that mattered.