MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

No Relief on Evidence Outside Pleadings, Reverses Divorce Decision on Grounds of Insufficient Cruelty Evidence: Telengana HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the High Court for the State of Telangana overturned a Family Court decision granting a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, emphasizing the legal principle that “No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings,” as highlighted by the Hon’ble Justices K. Lakshman and P. K. Sujana.

The case, Involving appellant A. Asha Latha and respondent Abisetti Venkata Rao, reached the High Court after the appellant contested the Family Court’s decision. Initially filed on the ground of desertion, the respondent later sought to amend the petition to include cruelty. However, this amendment was previously set aside by the High Court in CRP No.1249 of 2014, leading to a significant misstep by the Family Court in granting divorce based on unpleaded and unproven grounds of cruelty.

In their judgment, the High Court Justices cited several precedents, underlining the importance of adhering to the norms of civil procedure. They stated, “A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded… Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint.” This reassertion of legal standards underscores the necessity for precise pleadings and the limitations of the court in granting relief beyond what is explicitly sought in the pleadings.

The High Court's decision to set aside the Family Court's order is seen as a reinforcement of the sanctity of legal procedures and a reminder that courts are bound by the claims and evidence presented within the framework of the law. Legal experts view this ruling as a significant affirmation of procedural discipline in matrimonial disputes, potentially influencing future cases where pleadings and evidence are in question.

Date of Decision: 14.11.2023

Asha Latha VS  Abisetti Venkata Rao

Latest Legal News