Date of reserved for orders : 30-07-2026 Date of pronouncement : 25-09-2026 Date of uploading : 29-09-2026 APHC010585502008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3602] FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 253/2008 Between: 1. V. RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O. C. YALL REDDY, R/O. 2015-24, R.H. COLONY, NELLIMUKK, PEDA GANTYADA, ...APPELLANT AND 1. C YELLAYYA REDDY, S/o. Gurappa R/o. 17-44-1, Kongapalem, Peda Gantyada, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2008(FCAMP 469 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings of order in OP.No. 593/2006, dated 20.10.2008 on the file of the Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the appeal in the interest of justice 2 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(FCAMP 257 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay orders dated 24-12-2008 in FCAMP.No. 469 of 2008 in FCA.No.253 /2008 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Y V SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B VIDYULLATA The Court made the following: 3 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.253 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Family Court Appeal is filed by the petitioner assailing the order and decree dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in O.P.No.593 of 2006 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act, 1955”), whereby dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dated 21.06.2003 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The parties are being referred to as „petitioner‟ and „respondent‟ as arrayed in the petitioner before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. Case of the petitioner, in brief, thus: That the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 21.06.2003 at Visakhapatnam as per the Hindu Rites and caste customs. After few days, their marriage was consummated. Respondent is none other than daughter of the petitioner‟s maternal uncle. At the time of marriage, 88 grams of gold is presented to the respondent by her parents. After their marriage, respondent joined in Polytechnic diploma course and started living as free bird, did not care anybody, developed hatredness towards the petitioner and did not 4 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 show any interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. Petitioner and his parents requested to come and join her to lead marital life but she paid deaf ear. When they requested the father of the respondent to send his daughter to the matrimonial house, he expressed his inability. Therefore, the petitioner started visiting the house of respondent‟s parents to lead marital life and for which also respondent refused to spend time with him. Respondent deliberately proclaimed that she does not have any interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. All the attempts made by the petitioner become futile. Without any reason, respondent is refusing for cohabitation. Respondent committed the acts of cruelty. The respondent lead marital life only for few days and deserted him in the 1st week of July, 2003. When the same is placed before the elders, they advised the respondent to join the petitioner, but she failed to join and intentionally deserted the petitioner. 4. While admitting the marriage, respondent filed counter refuting the averments made in the petition, wherein, inter alia contended as follows: a) At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry, gold ornaments and lanchanams. They lead marital life for one year only. Thereafter, petitioner and his family members started harassing this respondent demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly, her parents gave Rs.50,000/- cash and saresaman worth of Rs.50,000/- but the petitioner did not change his attitude. Petitioner and his family members harassed the respondent mentally and 5 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 physically and in the year, 2005 petitioner and his family members beat the respondent and necked her out from the matrimonial house. b) Then, parents of the respondent placed the matter before the elders and they chastised the petitioner. Having accepted before the elders that he will look after the respondent properly, he failed to mend his attitude, demanded additional dowry, beat black and blue and did not provide food and medical aid to the respondent. On 21.06.2025, when the respondent requested the petitioner to give permission to go to her parent‟s house, having given permission, he demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. She expressed inability and then, the petitioner beat the respondent and confined her in a room without providing food to her. In the month of December, 2005, petitioner and his family members tried to kill the respondent by leaking the gas and thereafter parents of the respondent took her to their house and finally, in the month of March, 2006 petitioner and his family members placed the matter before the elders, for which they demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the month of June, 2006 petitioner came to the house of the respondent‟s parents created nuisance and demanded to give divorce. In the month of November, 2006, respondent came to know that the parents of the petitioner are trying to perform 2nd marriage to the petitioner, and then she gave report to the police and the same is registered as a case in Crime No.565 of 2006 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and pending on file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. After 6 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 marriage, respondent discontinued her studies, she never deserted the petitioner and the petitioner himself deserted the respondent, and with other formal denials, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. During enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and he has got examined two independent witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and no documents are filed. As against the said evidence, respondent examined herself as RW.1 and she has got examined independent witnesses as RWs.2 and 3 and no documents are filed. 6. At the culmination of enquiry, learned family Court allowed the petition dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent vide order dated 20.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the decree and order dated 20.10.2008, respondent preferred the instant appeal urging the following grounds: (i) The order of the trial court is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (ii) The trial Court utterly failed to assign reasons for granting divorce; (iii) The trial Court erred in discussing the evidence of witnesses and erred in not considering the evidence of respondent and her witnesses, (iv) The trial Court failed to prosecute that the petitioner failed to examine any elder or mediator except PW.3, and with other formal grounds prayed to allow the appeal. 7 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 7. Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Vidyullata, learned counsel for respondent. 8. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record including the decree and order dated 20.10.2008, the points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the petitioner had established his case to dissolve his marriage with the respondent dated 21.06.2003 on the ground of cruelty and desertion? 2. Whether the decree and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is sustainable in facts and law? 3. To what relief? 9. Admitted facts: That the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 21.06.2003 at Visakhapatnam as per Hindu Rites and caste customs. Their marriage was consummated. Respondent gave report against the petitioner and his family members of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the same is pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Respondent is none other than the daughter of maternal uncle of the petitioner. They lead marital life for a short period. 8 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 10. Before delving the facts of the case, it is opposite to mention that except reproducing evidence of all the witnesses i.e., PW1 to 3 and RWs.1 to 3, the learned judge, Family Court has not at all appreciated the evidence in respect of the alleged cruelty and desertion and after reproducing evidence of each witnesses till para No.12, simply allowed the petition by assigning the following reasons at para Nos.13 and 14: “13. The evidence on record, therefore, establishes that from 2003, the respondent and the petitioner are living separately from each other. Though the respondent contended that the marriage was not consummated, he did not file any document to prove his contention. Similarly, the respondent also has not filed anything to show that dowry and lanchanams are given to the petitioner. I, therefore, hold that the marriage between the parties has been irretrievably broken and as such, there are sufficient grounds to dissolve the marriage between the parties. I find on the point accordingly. 14. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved.” 11.Point No.1: a) Being this Court is first appellate Court and the fact finding Court, it is just and appropriate to re-examine and re-appreciate the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Now, it is necessary to analyse the evidence available on record, so as to answer the points. b) Petitioner filed the petition on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and as per Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, any marriage solemnized, whether 9 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party, has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. c). At the same time, the burden of establishing the grounds for divorce remains upon the petitioner. The mere fact that the parties have lived separately for a long period, by itself, cannot be treated as an independent statutory ground for divorce by a High Court. Likewise, the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, though recognised in appropriate cases by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, cannot by itself be treated as a ground available to a High Court under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the decree has to be tested with reference to the statutory grounds pleaded and proved by the petitioner. d). Cruelty is not capable of an exhaustive definition. Whether a particular conduct amounts to mental cruelty has to be determined by considering the entire matrimonial relationship, the nature and gravity of the conduct, its impact upon the spouse complaining of cruelty, and the surrounding circumstances. In Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that 1 (1975) 2 SCC 326 10 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 matrimonial proceedings are civil proceedings and the allegations constituting the ground for relief are to be established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. e). Further, in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh2, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court explained that mental cruelty has to be assessed from the entirety of the matrimonial life of the parties. The Court observed, among other things, that sustained neglect, indifference, refusal of conjugal relationship without justification, and conduct which makes it extremely difficult for one spouse to live with the other may, depending upon the facts of the case, constitute mental cruelty. The Court also made it clear that trivial irritations, ordinary wear and tear of married life and isolated incidents would not ordinarily constitute cruelty. Thus, the question is whether the conduct proved on record has crossed the threshold of ordinary matrimonial discord and has caused such mental pain or suffering that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to continue the relationship. f). In the present case, PW.1 categorically deposed that, after the marriage, the respondent did not evince interest in leading matrimonial life with him and that repeated efforts made by him and his family members to persuade her to return were unsuccessful. He further deposed that elders and other persons intervened and advised the respondent to resume cohabitation, but she did not do so. Though PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination, his evidence regarding 2 (2007) 4 SCC 511 11 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 the respondent‟s unwillingness to resume cohabitation was not materially shaken. g). The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 assumes significance in this regard. They are not shown to be interested witnesses merely because they had intervened in the matrimonial dispute. Both witnesses stated that the respondent was residing with her parents and that efforts were made to persuade her and her parents to send her back to the petitioner. Their evidence is consistent on the material aspect that the respondent was unwilling to resume the matrimonial relationship and that attempts at reconciliation did not fructify. The fact that the witnesses were unable to give every minute detail regarding the dates of the meetings or the precise sequence of events cannot, by itself, render their testimony wholly unreliable, particularly when their evidence is consistent on the material circumstances. h) It is true that PW.2 stated in cross-examination that the parties had lived together happily for about one and half year and that he did not know the exact date on which the respondent left the petitioner. PW.3 also referred to the parties having lived together for about one and half year. These statements, however, do not demolish the petitioner‟s case. On the contrary, they establish that the parties did live together for a period after the marriage and thereafter separated. The precise date of separation is relevant principally to the ground of desertion; the 12 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 substance of their evidence regarding the respondent‟s refusal to resume cohabitation remains intact. i) The respondent, while denying cruelty, admitted several circumstances which are relevant to the controversy. She admitted that the parties had been living separately for a long period. Her evidence shows that the matrimonial relationship had not been restored despite the passage of several years and despite interventions between the parties. Her allegation that the petitioner had harassed her and demanded additional dowry was not supported by documentary evidence. Had really, the petitioner and his parents tried to kill her, she should have been given report immediately, but she didn‟t do so. j) The respondent‟s allegations of harassment have to be assessed along with the entire evidence on record. The respondent did not place sufficient material before the Family Court to establish that her continued separate residence was compelled by proved acts of cruelty on the part of the petitioner. Her version also does not satisfactorily explain why, despite repeated interventions and the passage of a substantial period, the matrimonial relationship was not resumed. k) The respondent‟s case that she was always willing to live with the petitioner also does not receive complete support from the evidence. Although she denied the suggestion that she was unwilling to join the petitioner, the 13 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 evidence of the independent witnesses including the witness examined by the respondent, coupled with the circumstances emerging from the record, establishes that attempts were made to bring about reconciliation and that the respondent did not resume cohabitation. l) The petitioner has thus established, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the respondent persistently refused to resume cohabitation and that repeated efforts for reconciliation failed. In the circumstances of this case, such prolonged and unjustified refusal to maintain the matrimonial relationship, coupled with the continued separation and failure of reconciliation, cannot be characterised merely as an ordinary matrimonial disagreement. The conduct, viewed cumulatively and in the context of the entire matrimonial relationship, caused substantial mental distress to the petitioner and constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. m) Coming to the ground of desertion, it involves both the fact of separation and the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end, without reasonable cause and without the consent of the other spouse. The intention may be inferred from the conduct and surrounding circumstances. The evidence of PW.1, supported by PWs.2 and 3, establishes that after the parties ceased living together, the petitioner made efforts to secure the respondent‟s return and that such efforts did not succeed. The evidence also shows that the parties remained 14 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 separate for a period exceeding two years before the proceedings were instituted. n) The respondent sought to attribute the separation to the alleged harassment and demand for additional dowry by the petitioner and his family members. However, as already noticed, those allegations were not satisfactorily established in the present proceedings. The evidence of the petitioner that he attempted to resume their relationship is supported in material particulars by PWs.2 and 3. The respondent, despite the opportunities for reconciliation, failed to join the petitioner. Thus, the necessary elements of desertion, namely separation and the intention inferred from the conduct of the respondent to discontinue the matrimonial relationship, stand established on the facts of the case. o) We also find that the reasoning assigned by the learned Family Court at paragraph 13 of its order is not satisfactory inasmuch as the learned Judge principally proceeded on the basis that the marriage had been irretrievably broken. As noticed above, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, standing alone, is not a statutory ground under Section 13 of the Act for a High Court to dissolve a marriage. However, an appellate Court is required to consider the decree on the basis of the pleadings and evidence available on record. On an independent re-appreciation of the evidence, we are satisfied that the petitioner established the statutory grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, the deficiency in the 15 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 reasoning of the Family Court does not warrant setting aside the decree when the material on record establishes the grounds on which the relief was sought. p) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not examine all the elders or mediators who allegedly intervened between the parties also cannot be accepted as a ground for reversal of the decree. There is no inflexible rule that every person who participated in a matrimonial mediation must necessarily be examined. The Court has to assess the evidence actually adduced. In the present case, PWs.2 and 3 have spoken about the efforts made for reconciliation and their evidence substantially corroborates the testimony of PW.1. The absence of evidence from some other elders or mediators is therefore not fatal to the petitioner‟s case. q) The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the evidence of the respondent and her witnesses was not properly appreciated. This Court has independently considered their evidence. The allegations made by the respondent regarding dowry harassment and physical ill-treatment were specifically denied by the petitioner. Apart from the interested testimony of the respondent, the material placed on record does not establish, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the petitioner‟s conduct furnished a reasonable cause for the respondent‟s continued withdrawal from the matrimonial relationship. The evidence of RWs.2 and 3 does not materially displace the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the attempts made to restore 16 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 cohabitation. Even as per the admissions of RWs.2 and 3 who are independent witnesses, mediators and others went to the house of parents of respondents to join the petitioner to lead marital life. r) Matrimonial proceedings cannot be decided merely on the basis of isolated allegations or on the assumption that either party is necessarily at fault because the marriage has failed. The Court is required to examine the conduct of both parties and determine whether the statutory requirements have been established. In the present case, the evidence, when considered cumulatively, shows that the petitioner made efforts to restore their marital bond, the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home, that the parties remained separate for a prolonged period, and that reconciliation efforts did not yield any result. The conduct of the respondent, in the circumstances established on record, amounts to cruelty and also constitutes desertion within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act. Hence, the point No.1 is answered accordingly. 12. POINT No.2: The decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, though supported by reasons which require correction to the extent indicated above, is sustainable on an independent reappreciation of the evidence and application of the statutory provisions. This Court find no sufficient ground to interfere with the ultimate conclusion of the 17 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_253_2008 Family Court. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. 13. In the Result, the Family Court Appeal is dismissed. The decree and order dated 20.10.2008 passed in O.P. No.593 of 2006 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM 25-09-2026 knl