Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce on ground of cruelty — Long marriage of 26+ years — Allegations of husband’s vices (drinking, gambling, betting, lotteries), physical violence and financial dissipation — Burden and standard of proof — No corroborative evidence — Ordinary wear and tear of marital life — Divorce refused. Petitioner-wife sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA after about 26 years of wedlock, alleging that husband was addicted to drink, gambling, matka, betting and lottery, squandered retirement benefits, physically assaulted her (including strangulation and an alleged acid attack), harassed her for money and property, ill-treated the children and forced them to sign on papers. Husband denied the allegations, asserted his service background, purchase of lorry and property in wife’s name, and claimed he had educated and provided for the children. On evidence, the High Court held: (i) allegations of vices and violent conduct were largely uncorroborated and vague; (ii) none of the third-party witnesses had direct knowledge of the alleged acts, their testimony being mostly hearsay; (iii) there was no earlier resort to legal processes or complaints during 25 years of marriage; and (iv) differences appeared to be no more than ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life. The wife failed to establish cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage. Decree of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition was affirmed and appeal dismissed. (Surapaneni Girija v. Surapaneni Laxmi Narayana, F.C.A. No.148 of 2006, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. (for the Bench: Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, JJ.))

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce on ground of cruelty — Long marriage of 26+ years — Allegations of husband’s vices (drinking, gambling, betting, lotteries), physical violence and financial dissipation — Burden and standard of proof — No corroborative evidence — Ordinary wear and tear of marital life — Divorce refused.
Petitioner-wife sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA after about 26 years of wedlock, alleging that husband was addicted to drink, gambling, matka, betting and lottery, squandered retirement benefits, physically assaulted her (including strangulation and an alleged acid attack), harassed her for money and property, ill-treated the children and forced them to sign on papers. Husband denied the allegations, asserted his service background, purchase of lorry and property in wife’s name, and claimed he had educated and provided for the children. On evidence, the High Court held: (i) allegations of vices and violent conduct were largely uncorroborated and vague; (ii) none of the third-party witnesses had direct knowledge of the alleged acts, their testimony being mostly hearsay; (iii) there was no earlier resort to legal processes or complaints during 25 years of marriage; and (iv) differences appeared to be no more than ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life. The wife failed to establish cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage. Decree of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition was affirmed and appeal dismissed.

(Surapaneni Girija v. Surapaneni Laxmi Narayana, F.C.A. No.148 of 2006, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. (for the Bench: Battu Devanand & A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, JJ.))

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Background

• Wife filed O.P. No. 26 of 2001 under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA before the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, seeking dissolution of marriage dated 23.02.1975.

• The Family Court, by judgment dated 29.03.2006, dismissed the petition.

• Wife preferred FCA No. 148 of 2006 challenging the dismissal.

• In appeal, husband though represented on record, did not advance arguments despite repeated opportunities; the Division Bench proceeded under Order XLI Rule 17(2) CPC on the basis of the record and Family Court’s findings.

2. Undisputed Facts

The High Court identifies these as not in dispute:

1. Marriage between parties on 23.02.1975.

2. A marital journey of about 26 years, with ups and downs.

3. They have two children.

4. The spouses are living separately for a considerable period.

The only real controversy: whether the wife has proved “cruelty” warranting dissolution.

3. Wife’s Case (Petitioner)

Key allegations:

• Husband, while serving as a Telephone Operator in the Air Force at Srinagar, was addicted to vices: drinking, gambling, matka, betting, lotteries.

• He allegedly:

  • Pressured her for money,

  • Came home late,

  • Neglected her, and

  • Subjected her to physical cruelty, including an incident of strangling her with a saree, from which she was saved only due to intervention of the house owner.

• She alleges she lived in a helpless condition for about four months at Srinagar, was manhandled, and ultimately thrown out and sent back to her mother’s house.

• Even after mediations, she says she was routinely driven back to her parental home on multiple occasions.

• Later at Visakhapatnam (about six years), she alleges an acid attack intended to deface her, necessitating a move to Vijayawada.

• She also alleges:

  • Demands for property, sale of property given by her parents,

  • Assaults on children,

  • Demands for jewellery,

  • Forcing children to sign stamped papers.

• She asserts that 26 years of marriage have been misery, that there is no scope of a safe marital life, and that she is constrained to seek divorce.

4. Husband’s Case (Respondent)

Key points in defence:

• He terms the allegations false, pointing out that the petitioner is his paternal aunt’s daughter and that her family had no means to pay any substantial dowry, so allegations of presentations/demands were false.

• He relies on his defence service career, suggesting that had there been ill-treatment, there would have been complaints through the wives’ welfare association.

• He asserts:

  • He purchased a lorry in the wife’s name from retirement benefits (transport business later sold in 1991 due to non-profitability).

  • He educated both sons with limited resources.

  • He later worked in private firms (e.g., Varun Motors from 01.11.1994 to 31.07.1997).

• He paints himself as a dutiful husband, claiming:

  • Wife was against him and his parents,

  • Her behaviour allegedly led to his father’s mental breakdown,

  • She developed a phobia about his financial status and felt insulted to be wife of an ex-serviceman,

  • She aspired to a lavish, modern life.

• He alleges wife:

  • Turned hostile once elder son started earning and sending money,

  • Developed superiority complex,

  • Tutored the children against him to isolate him and capture their financial benefits.

• He projects himself as an excellent employee and award-winner, denying vices and asserting no adverse interest against his wife.

---

5. Evidence Before Family Court and High Court’s Re-Appreciation

Petitioner’s evidence:

• PW1 (wife): reiterates her pleadings — husband’s vices, physical cruelty, squandering of retirement benefits, disregard of family’s needs, and harassment of children.
  In cross:

  • Admits marriage was love marriage, they were relatives.

  • Confirms they lived about 9 years at Visakhapatnam, and that:

    • Husband purchased lorry in her name,

    • Lorry was later sold, and a site at Rajahmundry was purchased in her name,

    • Share business was also conducted in her name,

    • All family assets stand in her name.

  • Suggestions put that she filed divorce because she wanted to go abroad and had no financial need of husband (denied by her), but no convincing independent corroboration of the alleged acts of physical cruelty emerges.

• PW2 was given up.

• PW3 (Ramakrishna Rao): husband of petitioner’s elder sister.

  • Speaks of petitioner’s complaints about respondent’s drinking, cards, matka, lotteries, harassment and dowry demands, and respondent maligning her character.

  • In cross:

    • Admits he had no direct knowledge of the couple’s life after the respondent took up service and moved around.

    • Did not visit Visakhapatnam residence.

    • Does not know specifics of respondent’s jobs or property details.

  • The High Court notes PW3 does not know the personal life of the parties, and his testimony is essentially second-hand.

Respondent’s side:

• RW1 (husband): reiterates his counter — denies vices, portrays himself as disciplined soldier, claims no prior legal notice and that wife left taking belongings.

  • Admits he did not initiate legal proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

  • His claim that he wrote letters/used elders for RCR is denied by wife and not supported by contemporaneous documents.

• RW2 to RW7: a mix of relatives, villagers, friends and colleagues.

  • RW2 (cousin), RW3 (villager), RW4 (family friend), RW5 (colleague), RW6, RW7 (another friend) all broadly speak well of husband’s character and say they “don’t know” of any serious disputes.

  • On cross, most reveal:

    • No direct presence during crucial incidents,

    • Hearsay knowledge from unnamed persons,

    • Unclear or absent knowledge of the couple’s detailed domestic life over the 26 years.

The Division Bench notes that RW2–RW7 essentially give character evidence but not direct evidence of the matrimonial incidents; their testimony is largely hearsay and of limited probative value on cruelty.

6. Key Factual Findings Highlighted by High Court

The Court aggregates critical facts:

1. Parties were acquainted and related even before marriage.

2. Wife was around 18 years at the time of marriage.

3. Respondent served at various stations; wife appears to have accompanied him throughout.

4. After discharge/retirement, they lived over six years at Visakhapatnam together.

5. All assets (lorry, site, share dealings) stand in the wife’s name.

6. There is no evidence of prior legal steps (RCR or complaints) by wife for most of the 25 years of marriage.

7. Allegations about vices are vague, and not independently corroborated.

8. The marital differences appear to be “ordinary wear and tear” rather than legally cognizable cruelty.

9. The divorce petition came after about 25–26 years of marriage (filed in January 2001 after a marriage in February 1975).

7. Application of Section 13(1)(ia) — Cruelty

• The provision requires proof that after solemnisation of marriage, the spouse has treated the petitioner with cruelty.

• The Court holds:

  • The alleged acts of physical cruelty (strangulation, acid attack, etc.) are unsupported by independent evidence, not corroborated by contemporaneous complaints, and not substantiated beyond the petitioner’s assertions.

  • Third-party witnesses on both sides are largely hearsay, unable to speak directly to the alleged incidents.

  • Over a very long period of cohabitation, with no legal action till after silver jubilee of marriage, the record does not reveal a sustained pattern of cruelty of the degree that justifies dissolution.

• The Bench emphasises that mere discord, financial stress, differences of lifestyle and ordinary quarrels do not amount to legal cruelty. On the available material, the threshold for cruelty is not crossed.

• The Court also notes that desertion is not a pleaded ground — the petition is solely under Section 13(1)(ia) — and therefore the case cannot be re-characterised as desertion-based.

Hence, the appellate Court finds no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce.

III. CONCLUSION / OPERATIVE RESULT

• Point No.1: The decree and judgment dated 29.03.2006 dismissing the divorce petition are found proper and sustainable. The appellant-wife failed to prove cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) HMA.

• Point No.2 / Result:

  • Appeal dismissed.

  • No order as to costs.

  • All pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.