//FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
APVS170000502024
Presented on : 25-03-2024 Registered on : 08-04-2024 Decided on : 15-04-2026 Duration : 2 years, 0 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
NARSIPATNAM
PRESENT: Mr. P. SHIYAZ KHAN
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam
WEDNESDAY, THIS IS THE 15 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 29 of 2024
(under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act) Between:
Nalluri Tejaswi, w/o P. Venkateswara Rao, aged 30 years, 9th Ward,
Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam Municipality and Mandal. C/o Meesala Subbanna,
Land Lord, Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam.
….Petitioner
AND:
Parupudi Venkateswararao, s/o Srinivasarao, aged 33 years, R/o Flat No.102,
House No.13-1-55/E/9, Sri Sai Nilayam S.2, Avanthi Nagar Colony, East Plot
No.9, P.R.Nagar, Motinagar, Erragadda, Moosapeta, Medchal, Malkajgiri,
Telangana.
...Respondent
This petition has come up before me for final hearing on 31.03.2026 in the presence of Sri P.Narasimham, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri
Page No:1 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
C.G.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent. Upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
O R D E R
This petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage held on 30.01.2020 between petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty and to pass such other orders which deems fit and proper and costs.
Petition Averments in Brief:
2.)The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 30.01.2020 at the Dwaraka Tirumala Venkateswara
Devastanam, West Godavari District, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Upon marriage, the Petitioner joined the Respondent in to the conjugal society. At the time of marriage, the Petitioner’s father provided dowry in the form of household articles (sare samans) valued at Rs.50,000/- and a cash payment of Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of additional household necessities. The matrimonial life was marred by unhappiness from the outset.
The parties resided in Hyderabad for six months before the Respondent sent the Petitioner back to her parental home on 20.07.2020. Although the
Petitioner returned to the matrimonial home on 28.10.2020 following
Page No:2 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
mediation, the Respondent subjected her to persistent physical and verbal abuse, characterized by intimidation, insults, and assault. Throughout the marriage, the Respondent’s conduct included:
•Physical Violence: The Respondent physically assaulted the Petitioner, including biting her right hand and attempting twice to strangle her, leaving the Petitioner in constant fear for her life.
•Mental Cruelty and Harassment: The Respondent frequently questioned the Petitioner’s fidelity, demeaned her physical appearance by comparing her to other women, and exhibited pornography, coercing her to replicate such acts.
•Extortion and Coercion: The Respondent consistently demanded that the Petitioner to sever ties with her parents and sought additional dowry.
•Coerced Documentation: The Respondent attempted to force the
Petitioner and her parents to sign a document absolving him of any liability should the Petitioner suffer harm, a demand which was refused.
On 18.01.2021, the Petitioner was again dropped at her parents' house, only to return to the Respondent later. The abuse escalated significantly until the Respondent ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial home on 20.04.2022. The Respondent has exhibited sadistic behavior and continues to threaten the Petitioner with divorce. Due to the repeated instances of physical
Page No:3 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
violence, mental cruelty, and the total lack of security, the Petitioner finds it impossible to safely reside with the Respondent. Consequently, the Petitioner has no alternative but to seek a decree of divorce.
3.)On notice to the respondent, he appeared and filed his counter by denying all the allegations and demanded for strict proof of the same.
Counter Averments in Brief:
a.)The main contention of the respondent is that the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands, having deliberately suppressed material facts. Consequently, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief of divorce. While the Respondent admits the marriage solemnized on 30.01.2020 at Dwaraka Tirumala, he categorically denies the allegations regarding the payment of cash Rs.50,000/- and the provision of Sare Samans and demanded for strict proof thereof. The Respondent denies all allegations of physical violence, verbal abuse, insults, demands for dowry, the exhibition of pornographic material, and attempts to sever ties with the Petitioner’s parents. These claims are false, baseless, and fabricated solely to manufacture grounds for divorce. The Respondent contends that the breakdown of the marriage is attributable entirely to the Petitioner’s conduct:
Page No:4 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
•Desertion: The Petitioner frequently abandoned the matrimonial home without reasonable cause, preferring to reside with her parents. Her actions constitute desertion under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act (HMA).
•Mental Cruelty: The Petitioner has subjected the Respondent to severe mental agony through; •Extramarital Involvement: The Petitioner engaged in frequent, prolonged, and secretive telephonic conversations with a third party named 'Manu.' Despite the Respondent's objections, she continued this behavior, often threatening suicide when confronted.
•Secretive Behavior: The Petitioner maintained unauthorized chats with unknown individuals and habitually deleted call logs and messages to conceal her activities, thereby destroying marital trust.
•Refusal of Marital Obligations: The Petitioner consistently refused to conceive or lead a normal conjugal life without any valid medical or personal justification, depriving the Respondent of his legitimate expectations of a complete family life.
•Neglect of Duties: The Petitioner willfully neglected all household responsibilities, creating an environment of hostility and hardship for the
Respondent.
•Unreasonable Demands: The Petitioner made excessive financial demands beyond the Respondent's means to support her personal luxuries and parental family, using humiliation as a tool when these demands were not met.
•Groundless Suspicion: The Petitioner habitually cast baseless aspersions on the Respondent’s character, suspecting his interactions with friends and family, which caused the Respondent immense distress.
Page No:5 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
b.)The Respondent has always treated the Petitioner with love and affection and discharged his marital duties with sincerity. Despite the
Petitioner’s past marriage and the subsequent mistreatment he has endured, the Respondent has maintained an open mind. The Respondent remains ready and willing to resume cohabitation and restore the sanctity of the marital bond, provided the Petitioner rectifies her conduct and fulfills her marital obligations. The Petitioner has failed to establish any grounds for divorce. Her allegations are concocted to garner sympathy, and she is guilty of desertion and cruelty. The Respondent prays that this Hon’ble Court dismiss the petition for divorce with costs.
4.)The petitioner to prove her case get examined herself as PW-1 and get marked Wedding Photo as Ex.P1; Wedding Card as Ex.P2; on her behalf. The father of PW1 was examined as PW-2. On closure of petitioner side evidence respondent examined himself as RW-1 and one Alla Venkata Ramanarao, was examined as RW-2.
5.)Heard both sides.
6.)Now the point for determination is:
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on dissolution
of her marriage dt 30.01.2020 with Respondent?
Page No:6 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
P O I N T :
7.) a.)With respect to this point it has been settled principal of law that “whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exists” as contemplated under section 101 of Indian Evidence Act.
Further, especially in a petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, the burden of proof lies entirely on the petitioner (the spouse filing for divorce) to prove specific grounds such as adultery, cruelty, or desertion by probobable evidence. The court requires proof to ensure that the allegations are not fraudulent, particularly for fault-based divorce. If the petitioner makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts on to the respondent to disprove the allegations.
Appreciation of Evidence:
b.)In the case on hand the petitioner by examining herself as PW-1 reiterated the contents of petition and get marked Wedding Photo as Ex.P1;
Wedding Card as Ex.P2; on her behalf. Pw.1 preceisely deposed that she was subjected to severe physical violence, including being bitten on the hand and suffering two separate attempts of strangulation, leading to a constant fear for her safety and the Respondent engaged in consistent verbal abuse, including questioning her fidelity, body-shaming, and coercing her to engage in sexual
Page No:7 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
acts based on pornography; that the Respondent demanded additional dowry and attempted to coerce her into severing ties with her parents; that he attempted to force her and her parents to sign a document absolving him of legal liability for any future harm inflicted upon her and a cycle of temporary separations and failed mediation, the Respondent permanently expelled her from the matrimonial home on 20.04.2022; that the history of sadistic behavior, ongoing threats and the total lack of physical and mental security, she asserts that living with the Respondent is no longer viable. To corroborate her version
Pw.2 also deposed in the same verbatim. Further, to sterenghten her case she relied on the admissions of Rw.1 & Rw.2. Where in Rw.1 admitted the marriage and also admitted that the petitioner joined him to lead marital life immediately after the marriage and they lived together for approximately six months initially and later the petitioner was dropped off at her parents' home on 18.01.2021 and the petitioner subsequently rejoined him at the marital home and resided there until 2022.
c.)Rw.1 explicitly stated in the chief affidavit that the petitioner maintained continuous mobile conversations/chats with unknown persons and deliberately deleted records to conceal them and contrary to that he clarified that he did not state in the chief affidavit that he does not suspect the petitioner’s fidelity. He admitted that they did not seek medical consultation
Page No:8 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
regarding their inability to conceive. Rw.1 categorically admitted that he has not filed any petition for the Restitution of Conjugal Rights and did not issue any legal notice for the same. He specfically admitted that he has agreed to obtain a divorce by mutual consent and he has no objection for granting a divorce, provided that the allegations leveled against him are not pressed.
Further, he admitted that no maintenance amount was paid to the petitioner during the period of separation and confirmed his previous employment with the LIC Housing Department and Avanigadda is his native village. On the other hand Rw.2 admitted that he did not receive a formal court summons to provide evidence. He admitted that he is not an immediate neighbor of the respondent and he got acquaintance with the petitioner only after her marriage and he has no direct knowledge of the private life or conduct that occurred between the petitioner and the respondent within their home and admitted that the petitioner has expressed no desire to resume cohabitation or reconcile with the respondent, attributing physical and mental harassment. The learned counsel
for petitioner argued that through these testimonies and admissions he could
establish his case and the said evidence is credible and probable to establish cruelty, thereby she is entitled for Divorce.
c.) To Negate the version of petitioners, the respondent relied on the testimonies of Rw.1 & Rw.2. Precisely Rw.1 deposed that this petition is based
Page No:9 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
on fabricated claims and suppressed material facts and all charges of physical violence, verbal abuse, dowry demands, and exhibition of illicit material are categorically denied as baseless fabrications and the failure of the marriage is attributable solely because of Pw.1 and Pw.1 repeatedly abandoned the matrimonial home without cause, residing with her parents and she subjected him to severe agony through extramarital conduct by engaging in secretive communications with a third party named 'Manu' and threatening suicide when confronted and maintaining unauthorized chats with strangers and habitually deleting records to conceal activities; that she neglected obligations by willful refusal to conceive or fulfill conjugal duties, and failure to perform household responsibilities and by making excessive, unaffordable financial demands and casting baseless aspersions on his character; that he has always performed his marital duties with sincerity and he remains willing to resume cohabitation with the Petitioner on reform of her conduct. To substantiate his plea Rw.2 also deposed in the same verbatim.
d.) To strengthen his case the respodent relied on the admissions of
Pw.1 & Pw.2. Pw.1 admitted that she failed to mention that the first and second panchayats were held at her home in Challapalli village. She admitted that she did not mention in her pleadings about the harassment in May 2021, the specific incident of the respondent biting her arm and the incident of the
Page No:10 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
respondent insulting (body shaming) her at a friend's house. She also admitted that she did not mention in her petition that she informed the respondent about her previous marriage to Sriram Syman Rao before marrying him. Pw.1 admitted about failing to mention that she moved to Kotauratla directly from
Avanigadda on 27.10.2021. She also admitted about filing no receipts for the purchase of "sare samans" (worth Rs.50,000) or for the Rs.50,000 cash allegedly given to the respondent. Pw.1 admitted that she did not visit
Government hospital for the alleged bite injury, instead seeing an RMP doctor, and confirmed there is no medical record of the treatment. She also admitted that she do not have copies of the alleged porn videos and did not seize the respondent's mobile phone and did not lodge a police complaint regarding these matters or the alleged physical abuse. Pw.1 admitted that she has no ration card or ID proof showing her father residence in Kotauratla, and she cannot bring a witness to prove your own residence there. She also admitted the wedding card (Ex.P2) is a reprint because the original was lost, though she did not mention this in her petition. She admitted that previously she married to
Sriram Syman Rao (2017) and that she did not contest the subsequent divorce case (DOP No. 568/2018) or file to set aside those orders. She explicitly stated in her testimony that she is not willing to live with the respondent to lead marital life. She admitted that she did not lodge police reports regarding the
Page No:11 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
demand for additional dowry, the threat to her life, or the demand that she should sever links with your parents.
e.)Pw.2 admitted that there is no documentary proof to establish that the court at Narsipatnam has the jurisdiction to hear the petition. He admitted that the fact of their residence at the house of M.Subbanna in Narsipatnam was not mentioned in the original petition. Pw.2 conceded that there is no evidence other than their own oral testimony. He further admitted that all information regarding disputes between the petitioner and the respondent was learned through the petitioner, and he lacks personal knowledge of the events.
Pw.2 was unable to provide specific dates, months, or years regarding alleged mental or physical harassment, time spent in Hyderabad or the respondent’s employment details and occurrence of the panchayat’s. Pw.2 admitted that they did not mention the respondent’s alleged business income of Rs.
10,00,000 or the ownership of two flats worth Rs.70,00,000/- in the initial petition. He confirmed that no police reports were filed regarding the alleged physical harassment. Pw.2 also admitted that the petitioner was previously married to one Sriram Syman Rao (a Christian marriage) and that a divorce (OP No. 568/2018) was granted by the Principal District Judge, Guntur and admitted that they did not inform the respondent about the petitioner’s first marriage. Pw.2 acknowledged that there is no documentary evidence to prove
Page No:12 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
that the respondent was informed of the petitioner's marital history prior to their current marriage. Pw.2 admitted about not having receipts or records for the alleged payment of Rs.50,000 to the respondent or any list of sare samans prepared at the time of the wedding. Pw.2 admitted that despite claiming the respondent has fertility issues, no medical reports were filed with in the court to substantiate this. Pw.2 explicitly stated he will not send the petitioner back to the respondent. There by argued that given the Petitioner’s admission that she is unwilling to reside with the Respondent, the petition lacks the necessary elements of a bona fide matrimonial grievance and should be dismissed accordingly.
f.) The learned counsel for respondent argued that the Petitioner has failed to prove the existence of physical, mental, or financial harassment.
He argued that the petition is not maintianable and liable to be dismissed and pointed that there are no merits in this case and stressed for dimissal of the petition on the following grounds:
•Jurisdiction.
•Hit by Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
•Supressing of facts about earlier marriage.
Section 13 (1) (ia) of H.M act not applicable as there is no cruelty. •
Page No:13 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Discussion & Decision:
8.) a.)The petitioner contention is that she was subjected to severe physical violence, including being bitten on the hand and suffering two separate attempts of strangulation, leading to a constant fear for her safety, consistent verbal abuse, including questioning her fidelity, body-shaming, coercing her to engage in sexual acts based on pornography, demand of
additional dowry, attempt to coerce her into severing ties with her parents and
forcing her and her parents to sign a document absolving him of legal liability for any future harm inflicted upon her and a cycle of temporary separations and failed mediation amounts to cruelty as such she seeks for divorce. Per contra, the respondent contended that all allegations of physical violence, verbal abuse, dowry demands, and the possession of illicit material, asserting that these are fabricated and that the petitioner suppressed material facts and the marriage's failure is solely because of petitioner due to abandonment, repeated, unprovoked departure from the matrimonial home, extramarital conduct, engaging in secretive communications with a third party named 'Manu' and strangers, including the habitual deletion of chat records to conceal these activities, threatening suicide when confronted, willful refusal to conceive or fulfill conjugal and household responsibilities and making excessive,
Page No:14 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
unaffordable financial demands and casting baseless aspersions on the respondent’s character.
b.) At this juncture it is apposite to refer the settled position of law where in the honble supreme court has held that the question of burden in a petition for divorce and said that burden of proof lies on the petitioner, however, the degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that throught the testimonies of Pw.1 & Pw.2 he colud establsih that the persistent pattern of physical, verbal, and psychological abuse including being bitten and two attempts of strangulation, persistent verbal abuse, body-shaming, accusations of infidelity, and coercion regarding sexual acts based on pornography, demands for dowry, attempts to isolate her from her parents, and the forced signing of a document intended to absolve the respondent of legal liability for future harm. Further stressed that the respondent’s own admissions, coupled with the lack of credible evidence from the defense, establish a clear and consistent history of cruelty. The evidence demonstrates that the breakdown of the marriage is irreparable and that the petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof to be entitled to a decree of divorce.
c.) To refute this the learned counsel for respondent argued that there is no evidence, no complaint, no documentray proof and no averments of
Page No:15 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
cruelty in petition or evidence and stressed for dimissal of the petition as this court has no jurisdiction, petition is hit by Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, Section 13 (1) (ia) of H.M act not applicable as no cruelty and due to supressing of facts about earlier marriage.
Jurisdiction:
i.)The learned counsel for respondent argued that this court has no jurisdiction as the petitioner was born on 01-12-1994 at Gajuwaka and her aadhar card address is at Cherlapalli. He further argued that the marriage was held at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple, marital life took place at Hyderabad and
Avanigadda and last residence is at cherlapalli and no situtation or parameter is there in the petition and the evidence invoking the jurisdiction of this court.
The learned counsel for respondent argued that mere statement in petition is not sufficient proof to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. To substantiate this he pointed on the admissions of Pw.1, wherein Pw.1 admitted her Initial marital residence as Erragadda, Hyderabad from February 2020 – June 2020; subsequent residence as bharat Nagar, Hyderabad from June 2020 – October 2021 and later relocated to Avanigadda and after that, her brother assisted in her relocation to Challapalli. Further she admitted that she arrived at her parents' residence in Kotauratla on October 27, 2021. She admitted her Place of Birth as Gajuwaka and her parents moved to Challapalli when she was six
Page No:16 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
months old and her father is a tractor mechanic, and owns family property in
Challapalli. She acknowledged that her petition does not explicitly state that she moved directly from Avanigadda to Kotauratla on October 27, 2021 and she do not possess a ration card or other formal identification documenting her parents' residence in Kotauratla and she is unable to provide witnesses to corroborate her residence in Kotauratla.
ii.) To disprove the same the learned counsel for petitioner argued that the present residence of the petitioner is categorically mentioned in the petition and in her chief affidavit as “9 th Ward, Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam
Municipality and Mandal, C/o Meesala Subbanna, Land Lord, Ramaraopeta,
Narsipatnam” as such this court has jurisdiction. Further, argued that as per section 19 (iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act “in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition” as such this court has jurisdiction. In detail section 19 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates as follows:
Section 19: Court to which petition shall be presented:-
Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction
Page No:17 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
(i) the marriage was solemnised, or
(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or
(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or *[(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or] * Inserted by Act.No.50 of 2003. w.e.f 23-12-2003.
(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.
As per section 19 (iiia) of Hindu marriage Act a petition under this Act shall be presented in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. In the case on hand in the petition and the affidavit the petitioner has specified the address as “9 th Ward,
Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam Municipality and Mandal, C/o Meesala Subbanna,
Land Lord, Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam” and to negate the same no probable material was placed to disprove that the petitioner is not residing at the address specified in the petition and affidavit. Thus, it can be said that this court has jurisdiction to maintain this petition.
Page No:18 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Hit by Order VII Rule 11 of CPC:
d.)The learned counsel for respondent argued that as this court has no jurisdiction this petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of
CpC. This objection does not make significance as in the above reasons it is categorically decided that this court has jurisdiction.
Supressing of facts about earlier marriage.
e.) i.)The respondent contends that the petitioner intentionally suppressed material facts regarding her previous marriage with Sriram Syman
Rao, solemnized under Christian rites. The respondent highlights that the petitioner failed to disclose the divorce decree issued by the Principal District
Judge, Guntur, in O.P. No. 568/2018, nor did she clarify whether she
underwent a religious conversion to Hinduism following her first marriage.
Relying on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 both of whom admitted the existence of this prior marriage and the subsequent uncontested divorce, the respondent argues that the petitioner’s failure to disclose this history to the respondent constitutes a significant omission. Conversely, the petitioner argues that the prior marriage is irrelevant to the present proceedings, as the dissolution of that marriage via a court decree is a settled, undisputed fact.
The petitioner maintains that the existence of a legally terminated prior
Page No:19 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
marriage poses no legal bar to the current petition. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that there was no legal obligation to detail the previous marriage within the pleadings of the current petition, arguing that any grievances regarding the non-disclosure of that history at the time of the current marriage’s consummation are matters for separate legal redressal, not this specific litigation.
ii.)For a fact to be considered as the current petition is for the dissolution of present marriage, the history of a past, legally dissolved marriage does not change the legal status of the current parties. Since the petitioner was divorced in 2018 (O.P. No. 568/2018), she was legally free to marry subsequent marriage. Therefore, the prior marriage did not constitute a legal impediment. The failure to mention it in this petition is a failure to disclose history, not a failure to disclose a legal impediment. If the respondent feels deceived, the appropriate legal route is to seek redressal through a petition for annulment based on fraud or misrepresentation. Attempting to introduce this in this petition where the marriage itself is already a conceded fact is an attempt to introduce an "extraneous issue." It does not affect the court's ability to adjudicate the current dispute. Thus, this court hereby dismiss the respondent’s objection regarding the non-disclosure of the prior marriage.
Page No:20 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Section 13 (1) (ia) of H.M act not applicable as there is no cruelty.
f.) i.)The learned counsel for respondent argued that there is no cruelty meted out by the petitioner in his hands as alleged. He pointed that the
Petitioner frequently abandoned the matrimonial home without cause, residing with her parents and in fact he has suffered severe mental agony due to persistent, secretive interactions with a third party ('Manu') and threats of self- harm when confronted, habitual concealment of communications deleting logs/messages to undermine marital trust, unjustified refusal to lead a normal marital life or conceive, willful avoidance of household duties, combined with unreasonable financial demands and constant humiliation and habitual and unfounded aspersions cast upon the Respondent’s character, causing significant distress. He further argued that in civil and matrimonial litigation, the burden of proof rests squarely on the party alleging wrongdoing and in this case the Petitioner’s reliance on oral testimony, unsupported by even a scintilla of corroborating documentary or medical evidence, is insufficient. He further stressed that the Petitioner failed to Discharge the Burden of Proof as there are no police reports regarding the alleged dowry demands or physical violence, despite the severity of the claims and there are no medical records for the alleged injuries, no receipts for the alleged dowry or cash payments, and no proof regarding the Respondent’s alleged assets or fertility issues. The
Page No:21 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
learned counsel for petitioner argued that there is no basis for the defense raised by the respondent. He pointed that Rw.1 and Rw.2 clearly admitted that he did not state he lacked suspicion of her fidelity, he also admitted of not seeking medical advice for conception issues, never filing for Restitution of
Conjugal Rights, and never issuing legal notices for reconciliation. RW.2 admitted that he has no direct knowledge of the couple's private marital conduct or life.
ii.) Coming to cruelty, the petitioner through Pw.1 & Pw.2 has specified that the Respondent physically assaulted the Petitioner, including biting her right hand and attempting twice to strangle her, leaving the Petitioner in constant fear for her life and frequently questioned the Petitioner’s fidelity, demeaned her physical appearance by comparing her to other women, and exhibited pornography, coercing her to replicate such acts. Further, the
Respondent consistently demanded that the Petitioner sever ties with her parents and sought additional dowry and attempted to force the Petitioner and her parents to sign a document absolving him of any liability should the
Petitioner suffer harm.
At this juncture it is apposite to refer Section 13(1) (ia) of The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
Page No:22 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955: Divorce: (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether 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
(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) XXXXXX
Cruelty:
Cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. The Honlbe Supreme
Court of India has expanded its scope to include humiliation, false accusations, and emotional abuse. In recent jurisprudence, the Court clarified that cruelty must be such that it makes cohabitation impossible.
Ground (i-a): Cruelty
Legal Evolution and Definition:
Statutory Provision: "that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty".
Page No:23 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Added by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, cruelty as a ground for divorce recognizes that physical violence and mental torture can make marriage impossible to sustain. The law recognizes both physical and mental cruelty as valid grounds.
Types of Cruelty
Physical Cruelty:
• Actual violence or physical harm • Threat of violence that causes reasonable apprehension • Assault, battery, or causing bodily injury • Denying basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing • Forced sexual acts or marital rape
Mental Cruelty:
• Conduct that causes mental pain, agony, or suffering • Persistent humiliation, degradation, or insults • False accusations of unchastity or adultery • Threats of harm to self, spouse, or children • Persistent denial of conjugal rights • Unreasonable restrictions on freedom and social interaction
Judicial Evolution of Mental Cruelty:
The Honble Supreme Court has significantly expanded the understanding of mental cruelty through landmark judgments:
Page No:24 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Objective and Subjective Test:
Courts must apply both objective (what a reasonable person would consider cruel) and subjective (effect on the particular spouse) tests.
Cumulative Effect Doctrine:
Individual acts that may seem trivial can collectively constitute cruelty when viewed in totality.
Matrimonial Conduct Standard:
Conduct must be such that it makes it impossible for the parties to live together.
Modern Understanding of Mental Cruelty:
Expanded Categories:
•Sexual perversions and abnormal sexual demands •Denial of conjugal rights for extended periods •False implications in criminal cases •Continuous surveillance and spying •Interference by in-laws with spouse's consent •Forcing spouse into unnatural sexual acts •Persistent demands for dowry after marriage •Treating spouse as servant rather than partner
Judicial decisions discussing cruelty as a ground for divorce:
iii.)Prior to 1976, cruelty was not a ground for divorce but to seek judicial separation. It is only by the 1976 amendment that it has been added as a
Page No:25 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
ground for divorce. Under Section 10, cruelty had to be severe enough to make the plaintiff reasonably fear that living with the other party would be harmful or injurious. Previously, this had to be proven to seek judicial separation, but this requirement has now been removed by the 1976
Amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act under sction 13. Resultantly, it is no longer necessary to prove such an existence of apprehension. Now, what is required is that it would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one spouse is so abnormal or below the accepted norm that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live in such a marital bond. The conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable, which would cause a reasonable apprehension that it is injurious or harmful to cohabit.
iv.)While deciding on the case of Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey, the Honble Supreme Court of India observed that cruelty has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but it is considered in marital problems as conduct that endangers the petitioner’s life with the respondent. Cruelty is defined as an act that endangers a person’s life, limb, or health. Cruelty, for the act, is that one spouse has handled the other and expressed such emotions against her or him as to have inflicted bodily damage, or to have created cheap anxiety of bodily injury, suffering, or to have wounded health. Cruelty may be both physical and emotional. Another spouse’s behaviour that creates
Page No:26 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
mental agony or anxiety about the opposite spouse’s marital situation is referred to as mental cruelty.
In the case of Manisha Tyagi vs. Deepak Kumar, it was held that to prove cruelty it is enough that the conduct of one spouse is so abnormal or below the accepted norm that other spouse cannot be reasonably be expected to put up with it. It is not necessary to establish any form of physical violence or even a reasonable apprehension of physical violence. Where there is continuous ill- treatment or cessation of marital intercourse or indifference between parties it may lead to cruelty.
In the case of Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, the Apex Court observed that for dissolution of marriage at the instance of the party who alleged mental cruelty, the impact of such mental cruelty must be that it is not possible to continue the marital relationship. The wrong party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his or her spouse. The degree of tolerance required in every case would be different, depending from couple to couple with reference to their background, level of education, and the status of parties.
In the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh, the Honble Supreme Court of India opined that when cruelty takes the form of harmful reproaches, complaints, accusations, or taunts, the general rule is that the whole marriage connection must be evaluated. This rule is especially important when the cruelty takes the form of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, or taunts. It is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements to create certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality that renders them capable or incapable of amounting to cruelty in all circumstances. After all, it is the
Page No:27 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
effect of the conduct, not its nature, that is of paramount importance in assessing a cruelty complaint.
In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli reported at (2006) 4 SCC 558
The Apex court has recognized irretrievable breakdown and recommended legislative reform. The Court granted divorce due to prolonged cruelty and litigation.
In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported at (2007) 4 SCC 511
The apex court has defined mental cruelty extensively, laying down illustrative guidelines.
In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat reported at (1994) 1 SCC 337
The apex court has held that mental cruelty includes false allegations and character assassination.
In Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported at (2012) 7 SCC 288, it was observed that the expression ‘cruelty’ has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. The Court said that what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and hence, a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce.
v.)Further, in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported at (2012) 7 SCC 288, the court discussed the question of burden in a petition for divorce and said that burden of proof lies on the petitioner, however, the
Page No:28 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance. The petitioner to establish cruelty standard required is clear and convincing evidence corroboration particularly in physical cruelty cases testimony of family members, friends, neighbors may provide evidence. In the present matter, the undistorted evidence clearly establish that the respondent questioned the Petitioner’s fidelity, demeaned her physical appearance by comparing her to other women, and exhibited pornography, coercing her to replicate such acts and the Respondent consistently demanded the Petitioner to sever ties with her parents and sought additional dowry and attempted to force the Petitioner and her parents to sign a document absolving him of any liability should the Petitioner suffer harm. This conduct of respondent is so abnormal and is below the accepted norm that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live in such a marital bond as such she is living with her parents since 2021. This indicates that the parties have been living separately for a significant period. The marital tie is practically severed, and the emotional foundation of the marriage has been eroded by mutual, serious accusations that make reconciliation improbable. The allegations levelled by the wife against husband were as serious as the allegations made by husband against the wife. Further, both the parties had moved away and settled in their respective lives and hence there was no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together.
Page No:29 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
vi.)Given the mutual nature of the allegations the Petitioner’s claims of physical & Mental violence and the Respondent’s claims of mental torture and infidelity this court finds that both parties have engaged in conduct that has made the continuation of the marriage impossible. Following the principles laid down in Manisha Tyagi and Samar Ghosh, where the conduct of spouses becomes so antithetical to the marital bond that cohabitation is unviable, a decree of divorce is warranted. Requiring the parties to remain bound by a status that has long since lost its substance would only perpetuate unnecessary agony.
Decision:
Thus, in the circumstances narrated by both parties this court finds that the threshold for cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) has been met through the cumulative effect of the parties' conduct and the resultant irreconcilable nature of their union. The marriage is hereby dissolved, and a decree of divorce is granted.
Result:
In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the marriage
held between petitioner and respondent on 30.01.2020 at the Dwaraka
Page No:30 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Tirumala Venkateswara Devastanam, West Godavari District, as per
Hindu rites and caste customs is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2026.
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Narsipatnam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner:
Pw-1: Nalluri Tejaswi Pw-2: Nalluri Mohan Rao
For Respondent:
Rw.1: P.Venkateswar Rao Rw.2: A.Venkata Ramana Rao
Exhibits Marked
For Petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Wedding photo Ex.P2: Wedding card
For Respondent: Nil
Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Narsipatnam
Page No:31 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
Date of Presentation: 25.03.2024 Date of Filing: 08.04.2024
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
NARSIPATNAM
PRESENT: Mr. P. SHIYAZ KHAN
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam
WEDNESDAY, THIS IS THE 15 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Hindu Marriage Original Petition No. 29 of 2024
(under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act) Between:
Nalluri Tejaswi, w/o P. Venkateswara Rao, aged 30 years, 9th Ward,
Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam Municipality and Mandal. C/o Meesala Subbanna,
Land Lord, Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam.
….Petitioner
AND:
Parupudi Venkateswararao, s/o Srinivasarao, aged 33 years, R/o Flat No.102,
House No.13-1-55/E/9, Sri Sai Nilayam S.2, Avanthi Nagar Colony, East Plot
No.9, P.R.Nagar, Motinagar, Erragadda, Moosapeta, Medchal, Malkajgiri,
Telangana.
...Respondent
This petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage held on 30.01.2020 between petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty and to pass such other orders which deems fit and proper and costs.
Court Fee of Rs.10/- is paid herewith as per Art.1(vii) of Sch.II of A.P.C.F.
and S.V.Act.
Page No:32 of 31 //FAIR//
H.M.O.P.No.29/2024, C.J (Sr.D),Narsipatnam
This petition has come up before me for final hearing on 31.03.2026 in the presence of Sri P.Narasimham, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri
C.G.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent. Upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
D E C R E E
1)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed that the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent held on 30.01.2020 at Dwaraka
Tirumala Venkateswara Devastanam, West Godavari District as per Hindu rites and caste customs is hereby dissolved by granting decree of divorce by desertion Under Section 13 (i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act; and
2) that the Respondent do also pay to the Petitioner a sum of
Rs...NIL…./- towards costs of the Petition.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this is the 15 th day of the April, 2026.
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Narsipatnam
Memorandum of Costs
For Petitioner :For Respondent :
No costs memo is filed on either side.
Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Narsipatnam
Page No:33 of 31