Top

Household Disputes Not Mental Cruelty, Rules Telangana High Court

The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka was hearing a family court appeal filed by the husband, challenging the order of the Family Court, Malkajgiri, which refused to grant divorce.

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court held that allegations relating to household disputes, arrest arising out of criminal proceedings, and an alleged demand for separate residence did not amount to mental cruelty, and on that ground dismissed an appeal seeking dissolution of marriage. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka was hearing a family court appeal filed by the husband, challenging the order of the Family Court, Malkajgiri, which refused to grant divorce. The husband alleged mental cruelty on the grounds that his wife did not cooperate in household work, frequently stayed at her parent’s home, and that criminal proceedings initiated by her family resulted in his arrest. He further claimed that the wife insisted that he live separately from his parents, which he claimed amounted to cruelty. The panel, however, found that the wife never deposed that she demanded a separate residence and that the claim emerged only as a suggestion during cross-examination, which carried no evidentiary value. The panel also held that the arrest of the husband could not be attributed to the wife, as the criminal complaint was lodged by her father. The panel further observed that issues such as domestic disagreements, differing work schedules, medical complications, and temporary separation do not, either individually or cumulatively, constitute mental cruelty in law. It was also held that a grievance by a mother-in-law regarding lack of cooperation in household work cannot be termed cruelty. Holding that the appellant failed to establish mental cruelty and that the Family Court correctly appreciated the evidence, the panel dismissed the appeal.

HC moved on Kukatpally demolition

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the proposed demolition of a residential colony at Indira Nagar, IDPL, Kukatpally. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Reddyvari Madhu Goud and other residents of Indira Nagar, IDPL, alleging a threat of demolition of about 233 houses, housing nearly 1,640 residents, largely belonging to economically backward sections. The petitioners contended that they have been in continuous and peaceful possession of the houses for over two decades and that any attempt to dispossess them without issuance of notice or adherence to due process of law was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. Standing Counsel appearing for the GHMC submitted that the Bhoodan Board was earlier made a party to the proceedings and that GHMC was subsequently impleaded. Standing Counsel sought time to obtain instructions.

Accused in Pocso case gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Pocso law in connection with allegations of sexual exploitation of a minor girl who later died by suicide. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by the petitioner seeking bail in a case registered by the Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. According to the prosecution, the victim, a 16-year-old girl studying ub Class VI, consumed insecticide at her residence in November 2025, and later disclosed that the petitioner frequently visited her house, professed love, promised marriage and allegedly exploited her physically, following which a case was registered. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false, that the petitioner and the victim were related, and that he was in judicial custody since November 2025, while the material part of the investigation was already completed. It was also submitted that a panchayat was held after registration of the case and that there was no objection from the de facto complainant to grant of bail. Taking note of the period of incarceration, the completion of examination of key prosecution witnesses including the statement of the victim, and the submissions made by the parties, the judge held that continued detention was not warranted and enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle )
Next Story