Suicide Threats, Abuse, False Cases Amount to Mental Cruelty: Telangana HC Panel

The panel, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B. R. Madhusudhan Rao, dismissed a Family Court appeal filed by a wife challenging an order passed by the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, which dissolved the marriage between the parties in 2016.

It was pointed out that the couple, married in 1999 at Annavaram Temple as per Hindu customs and have twins born in 2001. It was contended that over the years, disputes arose between them, leading the husband to seek divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

The husband would argue that the wife spent excessive time on phone calls with unknown persons, which became a recurring source of conflict. In support of his claims, he produced call data records covering several months and examined a witness, which according to the husband corroborated frequent quarrels between the couple and disturbances caused in their residential premises.

The witness also supported the allegation that the wife had threatened to commit suicide to pressurise the husband. On the other hand, the wife denied all allegations and contended that she was subjected to ill-treatment.

She would argue that her husband often stayed away from home, returned in an intoxicated condition, and failed to discharge his responsibilities. While admitting the marital relationship and the existence of disputes, she disputed the allegations relating to her conduct and phone usage.

The panel, observed that the version of husband was consistent and supported by documentary evidence, including call data records, as well as the testimony of an independent witness.

Speaking for the panel, Justice K. Lakshman observed that such behaviour causes deep emotional distress and creates an atmosphere of fear and instability, making it unreasonable to expect the spouse to continue the marital relationship.

The panel further held that mental cruelty can be inferred from a pattern of conduct and does not necessarily require physical violence. The High Court accordingly held that there was no illegality or perversity in the order granting divorce.

Meanwhile, Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court set aside a government memo that diverted an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) case against a senior medical official to departmental proceedings, holding that such action, without recorded reasons, amounts to non-application of mind and undermines the criminal process.

The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Dr. Jyotindra Kumar Singh, a cardiothoracic surgeon, challenging a memo issued on March 17, 2017. The petitioner, a super-speciality doctor trained at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), alleged that during his academic tenure in 2014, the then Head of Department demanded illegal gratification and compelled him to transfer money on multiple occasions.

He further claimed that, upon failing to meet additional demands at the time of final examinations, he was deliberately failed despite his otherwise satisfactory performance. According to the petitioner, apprehending exposure, the official lodged a criminal case against him.

This led to multiple proceedings, including registration of a case by the ACB in 2015. It was pointed out that following investigation, the Director General of the ACB, in a report issued on April 2, 2016, found a prima facie case warranting detailed investigation, and a charge sheet was prepared and placed before the Special Court for SPE & ACB Cases in Hyderabad.

It is the case of the petitioner that the State government, instead of granting sanction for prosecution, issued the impugned memo transferring the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) without assigning any reasons. The petitioner contended that it diluted the criminal proceedings and was contrary to statutory provisions governing such decisions. The Court noted that under the relevant legal framework, a case can be referred to a disciplinary tribunal only after the government forms an opinion that it is not fit for criminal prosecution. In the present case, no such opinion was recorded.

The judge further observed that once a charge sheet is filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the executive cannot, through an administrative order, divert the matter in a manner that undermines the criminal justice process. Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the judge reiterated that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings operate in distinct spheres and may proceed simultaneously.

It emphasized that departmental proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption. The judge found that the impugned memo neither disclosed reasons nor demonstrated application of mind and had the effect of shielding a public servant against whom serious allegations had been prima facie established by the ACB. Such action, it held, was arbitrary and contrary to law.

Accordingly, the judge set aside the memo insofar as it related to non-consideration of sanction for prosecution and directed the competent authority to reconsider the issue based on the ACB report. It clarified that departmental proceedings may continue independently.