Telangana HC Refuses Husband’s Plea to Annul Marriage

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Friday refused to annul a decade-old marriage, holding that a husband cannot seek nullity merely because his wife left him on the very day of the wedding. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy was hearing a Family Court appeal filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of his petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration that the marriage solemnised in 2013 be treated as a nullity. According to the appellant-husband, the marriage was the second for both parties, and the respondent-wife left his company on the day of the wedding, expressing her unwillingness to continue the relationship. Despite repeated attempts by him, his parents, and elders, including a visit to the respondent’s parental home and a panchayat held in December 2013, the wife allegedly did not return, prompting him to seek annulment. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the husband approached the court within one month of the marriage, which was impermissible in view of Section 14 of the Act, barring divorce petitions within one year of marriage. The court noted that the husband attempted to circumvent this bar by styling the case as one for annulment without pleading any statutory ground of voidability. Hearing the appeal, Justice Lakshman, speaking for the panel, observed that Section 12(2)(b) applies only where a marriage is sought to be annulled on the ground that the wife was pregnant by another at the time of marriage. The record showed that the appellant had not pleaded this ground or any other ground under Section 12(1) in his annulment petition. Holding that the case did not fall within any category of voidable marriages contemplated by the Act, the panel affirmed the reasoning of the Family Court and dismissed the appeal.

2. HC raps IOCL over arbitary contract cancellation

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reprimanded the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for cancelling a bunker barge transportation contract awarded to a Visakhapatnam-based operator, as arbitrary, mechanical and in violation of an earlier court order. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Kesari Marine Service. IOCL had issued a letter of acceptance (LOA) to the petitioner in February, followed by a work order in March. The corporation later cancelled the LOA, alleging failure to position the barge within 30 days. In May, the High Court held this cancellation illegal, noting that the work order was issued only 10 days before the alleged deadline and that IOCL had miscalculated the 30-day period. Despite the court’s earlier findings, IOCL reaffirmed the cancellation on the same ground. Justice Bheemapaka expressed displeasure, observing that the corporation repeated a reasoning already rejected by the court and acted “without application of mind.” The judge clarified that the 30-day period from the LOA dated February 20 would end on March 22, not earlier as claimed by IOCL, and that the petitioner’s technical capability was never in question.

3. HC asks OU to hear student on rustication

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed Osmania University to consider the representation of a third-year BSc (MECS) student of Nizam College who was rusticated from the college and hostel on allegations of indiscipline and ragging. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by M. Harsha. The petitioner alleged that he was falsely implicated in a hostel protest despite not participating in it and that the rustication order and transfer certificate containing adverse remarks were issued without notice or inquiry, in violation of natural justice. It was contended that nearly 90 hostel inmates reported to the authorities, stating that no incident of ragging occurred. Counsel for the petitioner urged that he be permitted to appear for his fifth-semester examinations commencing in November. The respondents stated that the petitioner’s grievance could be placed before the Vice Chancellor, who would examine it in accordance with the law. Recording these submissions, Justice Nanda directed the Vice Chancellor to consider the representation expeditiously and take a decision after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the student and concerned parties, keeping in view the student’s academic interests.