Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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