Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News