The Telangana High Court on September 3 dismissed a man’s appeal, and upheld a divorce decree granted to his wife, holding both are at liberty to lead their respective lives independently since their marriage is “broken irrevocably”.
The Division Bench, presided by Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, upheld the trial court’s finding that the acts and conduct of the man had caused “severe mental agony” to the woman.
“…unlike the procedural laws and penal laws which are enacted by the legislation, the family law, being a welfare legislation, the same cannot be executed forcibly,” the division bench said.
The appeal was filed by the man against the divorce order passed by the First Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. The woman had originally sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and non-consummation of their marriage, which was solemnised in August 2018.
The trial court had granted the divorce, holding that both parties were equally responsible for the marriage’s failure.
The High Court held rare in-camera proceedings, interacting with the husband and wife jointly and separately on two occasions. The court noted that during these interactions, the wife “categorically made it clear that there is absolutely no possibility of any compromise” and that she was “wholly averse to any kind of marital reconciliation.”
The judgment stated that the wife’s allegations against the man were “extremely serious in nature, including allegations of physical abuse and bordering on depravity.” The court observed that the woman “submitted painfully about the severe mental/physical agony from the appellant from the date of marriage.”
Story continues below this ad
The court was critical of the man’s contention that he had a “fantasy” about the concept of marriage, and a desire to reunite with his wife based on “happy memories.” The bench found this stance to be unbelievable, especially in the face of the woman’s steadfast position. The court acknowledged that a marriage that “has already ceased to exist in substance” must be formally dissolved.
After a thorough perusal of the evidence presented by both sides, including medical reports confirming the physical fitness of both parties, the court concluded that it found “no ground to interfere with or set aside the impugned order.”
