Repeated Criminal Proceedings and Judicial Harassment Amount to Mental Cruelty: Telangana High Court Upholds Divorce, Enhances Maintenance for Child to ₹80 Lakh

“Court Cannot Ignore Sustained Matrimonial Discord and Prolonged Separation While Assessing Mental Cruelty” – In a significant ruling on the scope of “mental cruelty” in matrimonial law, the Telangana High Court upheld a Family Court decree granting divorce to a husband who had been subjected to sustained criminal litigation and alleged harassment by his wife. The Division Bench of Justices K. Lakshman and Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy in Shiva Deepthi v. Konduti Vivek (Family Court Appeal No. 312 of 2018) confirmed the dissolution of the marriage while enhancing the maintenance awarded to the couple’s minor daughter from ₹10 lakh to a substantial ₹80 lakh.

The case, which encapsulated bitter matrimonial disputes, allegations of psychiatric illness, criminal prosecution, and eventual breakdown of marital relations, brought into focus the evolving judicial interpretation of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly in the context of false criminal proceedings and irreconcilable differences.

“False or Failed Criminal Proceedings Constitute Mental Cruelty to Spouse”

Referring to the repeated criminal litigation initiated by the wife, including complaints under Section 498-A IPC, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, and maintenance petitions under Section 125 CrPC, the Court observed that:

“Repeated criminal litigation and its consequences constituted mental cruelty to the husband.”

The husband had been arrested, remanded for 10 days, and had his bail rejected twice. A Look Out Circular was issued against him, resulting in detentions at the airport and professional setbacks. The Family Court had found this to be a material consideration in assessing cruelty, and the High Court agreed, noting that these actions, while within the wife’s legal rights, were neither proven nor followed up with appeals after acquittal—suggesting a pattern of judicial harassment.

“Serious Allegations Cannot Be Mechanically Accepted Without Independent Corroboration”

While the husband had alleged that the wife suffered from schizophrenia and exhibited violent, abnormal behavior even during the honeymoon, the Court critically examined the evidence and held:

“Husband failed to prove that the wife was suffering from psychiatric illness prior to marriage.”

Despite the seriousness of the claims, no independent witnesses or documents were presented. Crucially, the doctors examined (PWs 2 and 3) only confirmed that the wife had sought treatment for sleeplessness and restlessness during her pregnancy — a condition not uncommon or medically disqualifying.

The Court noted that even the husband’s own witnesses did not support his claim of pre-marital psychiatric illness:

“Medical evidence only showed treatment for low mood and fearfulness during pregnancy. The Family Court erred in presuming pre-marital mental illness without adequate proof.”

Long Separation, Failed Mediation, and Irretrievable Breakdown Relevant Factors

The parties had been living separately since 2012, shortly after the birth of their daughter. Several attempts at reconciliation, including court-monitored mediation, failed. The wife had also gone to the USA without informing the husband, and the couple had exchanged multiple legal notices over the years.

While the Court acknowledged that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce, it held that:

“Though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground, the Court is entitled to consider prolonged separation, failed mediation, and absence of possibility of reunion as relevant circumstances while assessing cruelty.”

The judges interacted with both parties and their daughter and found no hope of reconciliation. These findings added weight to the conclusion that mental cruelty had been established.

₹80 Lakh Directed as Full and Final Maintenance for Minor Daughter

While the Family Court had earlier directed the husband to deposit ₹10 lakh for the maintenance of the minor daughter, the High Court found the amount inadequate. Noting that the child, born in 2012, was now 13 years old and studying in the 8th grade, the Bench considered future educational needs and the respondent’s financial capacity.

The Court took into account that the father had previously paid ₹17 lakh in maintenance and that he owned a share in a house valued at around ₹50–60 lakh. Accordingly, it held:

“The respondent is directed to pay ₹80,00,000 (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only) towards maintenance of his daughter, to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalized bank in the child’s name within three months.”

The Court clarified that this amount would be treated as full and final settlement for the child’s maintenance and education. The wife, now gainfully employed, was held not entitled to any further alimony.

It was also made clear that failure to deposit the amount within three months would entitle the appellant and child to initiate legal recovery proceedings.

Court Emphasizes Procedural Responsibility in Family Disputes

The Court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record, including cross-examinations and documentary material, and reaffirmed the principle that:

“Uncorroborated serious allegations—such as suicide threats or violent conduct—cannot be mechanically accepted.”

It also noted that the wife had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, but it was dismissed for default. Similarly, her DVC petition and application under Section 125 CrPC were also dismissed for default, suggesting inconsistency in pursuit of claims.

The High Court finally concluded:

“There is no possibility of re-union. The Family Court’s decision granting divorce on ground of mental cruelty is legally sustainable.”

Conclusion: Marriage Dissolved, Maintenance Enhanced, Legal Hostilities Brought to Closure

With this judgment, the Telangana High Court brings closure to a prolonged and embittered legal battle between the estranged couple, confirming the Family Court’s divorce decree and reinforcing the principle that unproven psychiatric allegations and unrelenting litigation by one spouse can amount to cruelty in law.

Date of Decision: 05 December 2025