Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Para 4.1,

4.1 The petitioner, appearing in person, contends that Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of the Act, 1961, particularly Sections 22, 30, and 33. It is argued that the statutory scheme unequivocally confers upon an enrolled Advocate the right to practice law, and such right is neither conditional nor subject to compulsory membership in any Bar Association.

From Para 4.4,

4.4. The petitioner further contends that the impugned rule violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the freedom to form associations inherently includes the right not to associate, as recognized in Damayanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678. Therefore, any compulsion to join a Bar Association infringes this constitutional guarantee.

From Para 5.2,

5.2. The respondents argue that the impugned rules, including Rule 6.1, are within the statutory framework and are intended to regulate and identify practicing Advocates, as well as to ensure effective implementation of welfare schemes. It is specifically contended that Rule 6 does not mandate compulsory membership in any Bar Association; rather, it provides an option. An Advocate may either become a member of a recognized Bar Association or, alternatively, intimate the State Bar Council regarding non-membership and indicate how he or she proposes to avail welfare benefits.

From Para 5.4,

5.4. The respondents also contend that the requirement of certification and verification is intended solely to identify genuine practitioners and facilitate welfare distribution. There is no violation of Article 19, as the rules neither compel association membership nor restrict the right to practice.

From Para 8,

8. At the outset, Sections 29, 30, and 33 of the Act, 1961 unequivocally recognize Advocates as the only class of persons entitled to practice law, subject to enrolment under the Act. The statutory scheme does not expressly mandate membership in any Bar Association as a condition precedent to the exercise of such right.

From Paras 12 and 13,

12. A plain reading of Rule 6 indicates that membership in a Bar Association is not mandatory. The provision merely affords an option to an Advocate either to join a Bar Association or, in the alternative, to intimate the State Bar Council regarding such non-membership for the purpose of availing welfare benefits. When construed in this manner, the rule can be sustained as a regulatory measure. Notably, the respondents have also urged that the rule be interpreted in this light.
13. In such circumstances, the requirement would fall within the ambit of Sections 6, 7, and 49(1)(ah) of the Act, 1961, as a condition governing the right to practice, aimed at identifying genuine practitioners and facilitating the implementation of welfare schemes.

Finally from Para 17,

17. In view of the foregoing analysis, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is read down to the following extent:
a) Membership in a Bar Association shall be purely voluntary;
b) Non-membership shall not disentitle or restrict an Advocate from practicing law;
c) Bar Associations shall not exercise any determinative or regulatory control over the right to practice.

Call to Action:

18. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1, namely the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, is directed to issue appropriate clarifications to all State Bar Councils. The requirement of certification and verification shall be implemented solely as a regulatory mechanism for availing welfare measures and not as a means of imposing coercive conditions.

Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 86]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137307844/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-bar-associations-exercise-regulatory-control-advocate-right-to-practice-538287

https://www.verdictum.in/telangana-high-court/vijay-gopal-v-bar-council-of-india-anr-bar-council-of-india-membership-1613590

Index of Bar Council Antics is here.

Sreenivas Motupalli Vs Anjana Taggarse Motupalli on 15 Oct 2024

Posted on August 26, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held that, ‘well educated and having so many properties and also having professional income doesn’t require interim maintenance‘.

From Para 17,

17. Petitioner herein made several allegations in the Divorce O.P which are to be decided after adducing of evidence by both the parties in the Divorce O.P as such this Court is not going into those aspects in detail. The issue before the Court is only regarding the granting of interim maintenance to wife and children before the trial Court. The respondent has no objection for granting of interim maintenance to the children and he is ready to pay the said amount but be he is not inclined to pay maintenance to the petitioner as she is well educated and having so many properties and also having professional income. Petitioner herself in her application stated regarding her qualifications, abilities and also regarding her professional career of 19 years she has represented many reputed clients as such it can be presumed that she has well established professional career. She also admitted that she was taking care of entire family with her own earnings. She herself stated that her mother gave two house properties in her name and she also stated that respondent transferred house at Jubilee Hills in favour of his father but still she is residing in the said house. Previously respondent was residing in one floor and in-laws in another floor but presently petitioner is residing with her children in the entire house property. She also stated that she is member of several clubs and she was teaching extracurricular activities in the clubs to her children. Even in the application, she stated that he was already paying the fee apart from that she requires interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- and all the details of the expenses were given in the above paragraphs and it was also an admitted fact that respondent herein paid school fee and also incurred the expenses of the club for the children for the certain period. Respondent filed letter of withdrawal of nomination dated 03.03.2010 and extract of minutes of meeting of Board of Director of Krishna Godavari Power Utilities Ltd., held on 13.03.2010 to say that presently he is not working as Director. Even petitioner stated that he was not paid salary for seven years after the marriage as the company is a joint family company and father of the respondent is karta of the family. Petitioner did not state about the income details of the respondent on the ground that he has hidden certain factors from the beginning of the marriage. Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.15,000/- per month to each of the minor children i.e., Rs.50,000/- in total and also directed to pay the said amount from the date of petition i.e., from November, 2010 to be payable on or before 6th of every month till the disposal of the O.P. The said order was passed on 27.06.2013 against the said order, this revision petition is preferred on 27.09.2013 and it is brought to the notice of the Court that so far he has not paid any maintenance to the children and not complied the order of the trial Court. Previously, women were financially dependent on the husband as they are not educated and not earning as such it was mentioned in the Laws that she should be maintained by the husband but the days are changed women are also highly qualified, working and earning and they can maintain themselves, therefore, it cannot be said that they are dependent on husband. Even in this case, the petitioner/wife is not dependent on respondent/husband as such granting of interim maintenance to her by the trial Court is not on proper appreciation of the fact and is liable to be set aside. Regarding the maintenance granted to the children this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. Now children became majors. However, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent to pay entire arrears of maintenance till they attain the age of majority.

Sreenivas Motupalli Vs Anjana Taggarse Motupalli on 15 Oct 2024

Index of Maintenance judgments under HMA are here.

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Posted on April 2, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Telangana High Court held as follows,

On Limitation,

22. Moreover, it is a settled rule of construction that every effort should be made to iron the creases out in two conflicting enactments and the more liberal enactment should be adopted for resolving the conflict. Both the 1955 Act and the 1984 Act are special statutes designed to ensure efficient resolution of conflicts within the family without subjecting the parties to further procedural hiccups. We also take recourse to the principle of law that when two interpretations are found to be equally possible, the Court may reasonably accept that the Legislature intended to prescribe a larger period of limitation: Shivram Dodanna Shetty Vs. Sharmila Shivram Shetty2, Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi Vs. Kunwar Singh Bedi3 and Chaudary Chetnaben Dilipbhai Vs. Chaudary Dilipbhai Lavjibhai4.

On Evidence for Divorce in first Marriage,

28. Admittedly, the respondent in the present case did not lead any evidence of the customary divorce between the respondent and his first wife. The impugned order dated 19.11.2024 reflects that despite conditional orders, the respondent neither appeared nor filed his evidence. This means that the respondent declined to lead evidence to prove customary divorce from his first wife or otherwise. Apart from a mere pleading that the respondent obtained divorce through customary practice, no other evidence of the existence of such a customary practice or a document showing that the divorce was indeed obtained through such a customary practice was produced by the respondent.

On impleadment of a co-respondent,

46. Further, Rule 8(3), which requires addition of a co-respondent in a petition under section 11 of the 1955 Act i.e., void marriages, cannot be equated to Rule 8(1) as the issue of whether the marriage is void is essentially a question of law rather than a question of fact. The presence or absence of a co-respondent, viewed from this angle, cannot be fatal to the outcome of the case.
51. We have considered the relevant Rules regulating the proceedings initiated under the 1955 Act and the decisions placed on the point of impleadment of a co-respondent in specific cases. We accept the contentions made on behalf of the appellant in favour of giving a comprehensive construction to the Rule. We are of the view that the presence of the respondent’s first wife as a co-respondent to the lis before us is not necessary since this is not a case where the respondent’s first wife would be required to be heard for preserving the principles of natural justice. This is also not a case where the adjudication would entail questions regarding her character, integrity or reputation. We must also take a practical view of the situation, since admittedly, the respondent’s first wife has been in a state of coma for a while.
52. The requirement of impleading the respondent’s first wife is hence dispensed with under an extended meaning given to the proviso to Rule 8(1) of the 1955 Rules. In other words, we do not find non-impleadment of the respondent’s first wife to be fatal to the petition under sections 11, 5 and 25 of the 1955 Act or in the Appeal before us.

On Desertion,

60. Moreover, the respondent has remained unrepresented in the present Appeal and the whereabouts of the respondent is not known to the appellant for over 4 years. As stated above, the notice addressed to the respondent in the present Appeal was returned with an endorsement “no such person in the address”. To put it simply, the respondent has made no effort to contest the Appeal or pursue the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed before the Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

Most importantly, On status of previous marriage,

67. There is a patent contradiction in the findings and reasons given by the Family Court. While the Court denied alimony to the appellant on the basis of the appellant being the second wife, the Court refused to come to any finding with regard to the status of the marriage between the respondent and his first wife. A finding on this was necessary in the context of the appellant’s petition seeking annulment of marriage under section 11 of the Act i.e., on the ground that the respondent had a surviving spouse on the date of his marriage with the appellant. To put it simply, the Trial Court failed to consider that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, both Hindus, could not have been legally solemnized if the respondent had a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

On Income Affidavits,

69. Another unsubstantiated finding is that the appellant obtained divorce from her first husband with an alimony of Rs.50.00 Lakhs and is now claiming permanent alimony of Rs.1 Crore from the respondent. The Trial Court utterly failed to consider that the respondent was equally accountable to disclose his assets in order to resist the claim of alimony. The impugned order does not disclose any direction on the parties to file their affidavits disclosing their respective assets

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Index of Divorce/Nullity judgments is here.

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Posted on February 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on one Apex Court decision here and two High Court decisions here and here, a single judge bench of Telangana High Court pass this short Order.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to direct the lower Court i.e., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016 at an early date in the light of judgment reported in 2002 (1) Supreme Court Cases 253 and unreported Judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Syed Nazim Husain v. Additional Principal Judge in (W.P No. 56 of 2002) and the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Civil Application No.2939 of 2017 in W.P.No.14039 of 2017, dated 26.04.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. An innocuous prayer has been sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner to issue a direction to the Court below to dispose of the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016 at an early date.
4. Having regard to the same, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.2956 of 2019 in C.C.No.505 of 2016, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting any adjournment.

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held that a deserter wife is not eligible for maintenance.

From Para 5-7,

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner voluntarily left the society of her husband and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective rightly passed the impugned order. Hence, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. On behalf of respondent No.1, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the petitioner voluntarily left the society of her husband and respondent No.1, never neglected or refused to maintain her. Except making averments in the petition, there is no proof filed by the petitioner, to show that her parents gave cash and other articles as dowry to respondent No.1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 discloses that the petitioner put conditions on respondent No.1 stating that she would join his society only if he would put up a basket shop by investing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, to give her seven (7) tulas of gold articles and to put up a separate family with her abandoning his parents. The trial Court further observed that respondent No.1 filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner and his consistent efforts to cohabit with her have gone in vain. Therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court opined that the petitioner failed to aver and prove that respondent No.1 neglected or refused to maintain her and that she is unable to maintain herself and thus, rendered the impugned judgment.
7. This Court vide order dated 02.07.2019, stated that no order directing respondent No.1, to pay interim maintenance can be granted, as the trial Court found that the petitioner herself left the company of her husband. Later, the matter underwent several adjournments.

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Index is here.

Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023

Posted on October 8, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court deprecated the practice of Telangana Police in not sending delete LOC requests to BoI, after a competent Criminal Court grants bail to an accused.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. This Court has gone through the Circular that was issued by the respondents pursuant to the order passed by this Court. By and large, in criminal matters, particularly under Section 498-A IPC., where a complaint is given by wife and husband is residing abroad, without making even an effort to reach the person by way of e-mail or whatever communication, and without even coming to a conclusion that the said person is trying to avoid the investigation, police are straight away issuing the Look Out Circular, by that time, accused would not even be knowing that a case is registered against him by the respondents. In respect of accused persons who are outside the country, the police shall make an endeavour to communicate about the pending case to the said person. Recourse to LOC shall not be resorted to by the respondents in non-cognizable offences under IPC. or in any other laws if accused is not evading arrest or has not failed to appear before the Court. Necessarily issuing the Look Out Circular will affect the person’s right to movement and the respondents shall be very careful while opening the LOC and resort to it in compelling and extraordinary circumstances. Secondly, in the report that is filed by the Director General of Police, it is stated that LOC will be continued basing on their satisfaction whether the person is going to cooperate with the investigation or not. When once an accused is granted bail by the Court or a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is issued by the police, if the police have apprehensions about his non-cooperation with the investigation or trial, it is always open to the police to make an appropriate Application before the Court concerned for imposing a condition that the person be directed not to leave the country. Once the bail is granted, the respondent police cannot continue the LOC without further recourse to the Court. In every case, the police are opening the LOCs. and keeping it pending forever and causing irreparable loss and hardship to the accused who in some cases has no intention to evade the investigation. The other difficulty that has been expressed in several cases is that the respondents are not leaving a toll-free or a specific number with BOI. They are generally giving the number of the concerned Station House Officers and sometimes, if they do not pick up the calls, the person is made to wait for hours together in the Airport. The respondent police shall take appropriate steps to evolve procedure or they shall see that some mechanism is in place such as centralised 24 x 7 service to attend the calls in respect of LOC from Bureau of Investigation so that if the immigration has to contact the concerned they will be able to reach out and the inconvenience caused to the concerned may be minimised. Wherever LOCs. are opened, the respondent police shall review the same once in three months and in cases where bail is granted, they shall immediately close the LOCs. The officer concerned who fails to inform the BOI is responsible and if he fails to address the letter to BOI, appropriate action shall be initiated against him for the said lapses. The Courts have to always balance the interest of the accused as well as the societal interest.
8. Fundamental right of the citizen in the democratic setup plays a pivotal role. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 interpreted the scope of Article 21 in the widest possible manner. The fundamental rights of a citizen can only be curtailed by a procedure known to law. The police while issuing the look out circular has to be very cautious. The circular directions issued by the Director General of Police shall be scrupulously followed. The Director General of Police apart from issuing the circular shall also see that it is implemented and fix the accountability.

Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162671944/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/659eb9c767795103e653e2bd

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=823202811000&Title=YERRAMILLI-SRINIVAS-Vs.-STATE-OF-TELANGANA

https://lawsuitcasefinder.com/casedetail?id=U2FsdGVkX19hrqxZBmhqLvP3mplo2JtpfyJa3CjqW3EDUUMgs5

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3-6,

3. Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent herself filed a petition vide FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed on 12.04.2018 and the said order and decree attained finality. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not permissible. In support of his contentions he has relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein, who are the aged parents of A-1.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that she has filed FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and the same was decreed and she has received an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as per the settlement taken place between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. She has also filed a petition vide M.C.No.39 of 2020 and also O.P.No.831 of 2018 on behalf of her son K.Naga Satya Sai towards maintenance and the said OP was closed on receipt of said amount of Rs.2 lakhs.
5. With the said submissions, the 2nd respondent specifically contended that she has no interest in continuing the present proceedings in Cr.No.800 of 2019 against the petitioners herein.
6. Considering the said aspects and also the fact that the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd respondent was dissolved vide decree and order dt.12.04.2018 in FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan’s case (supra) and also considering the contents of the counter affidavit, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings 2019(1) ALT (Crl.)276 (SC) in Cr.No.800 of 2019, pending on the file of WPS, DD, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein are quashed.

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81574210/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Posted on June 30, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Telangana High Court granted divorce to husband, by holding that,

From Para 16,

16. The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon them to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court’s work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17. It is relevant to state that the Trial Court also held that the brief “reunion” of the parties in May, 2015 precluded the appellant from re-agitating events prior to the respondent coming to live with the appellant as it indicated forgiveness on the part of the appellant. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and the presumption.
18. Condonation and forgiveness means restoration of the offending spouse to the same position as he/she was before the offence was committed. The evidence must also point to this direction: Dr.N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane13. Forgiveness would be a misnomer in a case where the wife stays with the husband for 2 months and then leaves the matrimonial home and lodges an F.I.R. against the husband and his family members for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act: Malathi Ravi, M.D v. B.V. Ravi, M.D.14. The Supreme Court in that case held that the husband had been treated with mental cruelty and affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the High Court.

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Trial Court Order dismissing the Divorce petition:

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 02 Nov 2021

Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024

Posted on May 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana HC, held that allegations against accused are vague and unspecific and hence the proceedings against them are quashed.

From Para 6,

6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the counsel, this Court has perused the material available on record. As per the averments of the complaint, petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 along with accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 for want of additional dowry. It is pertinent to note that except the above allegation there are no specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 and there is no allegation to demonstrate that they interfered with the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Further, the statement of respondent No.2 recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., shows that when she complained to accused Nos.2 to 5 about the harassment of accused No.1, they supported accused No.1. Except the above said allegation, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner to constitute offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of DP Act.

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal1, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
8. Further, in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand2, the Apex Court observed that the family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case. In view thereof, as the petitioners are not residing along with the family of accused No.1, the allegations against them are vague. Therefore, it can be said that category No.1 as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served and there are no other specific allegations against the petitioners.

Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 5,

5. The petitioners have claimed that the Court below erred in dismissing their application and failed to understand the hardship faced by the petitioners that is the personal health issues and impotency, which they had explicitly stated. Their petition under Section 14(1) of H.M. Act was dismissed mechanically, without appropriate examination of the content. They have also pleaded that the Court below dismissed their petition without considering their arguments and the precedents they cited, thus exceeding the scope of the matter.

From Para 7,

7. The petitioner No.2 is forty (40) years old and who appeared personally through video conferencing submitted that she has received a marriage proposal which is at the final stage of settlement. However, things cannot materialise unless the divorce is obtained so far as the present marriage is concerned. She wishes to remarry due to biological complications that can occur with pregnancies at her age, such as a higher risk of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery.The delay in the divorce process is causing her a great deal of anxiety, as she is keenly aware that time is not on her side which is an immediate resolution to her request for divorce.

From Para 15,

15. In the present case the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 01.06.2023 and they commenced their matrimonial life together. However, their marital journey was short-lived as they continued their marital life for two (02) months. During this brief period, their relationship was beset by differences that arose primarily due to health problems and impotency. These issues created a barrier in their relationship and led to the consensual decision of dissolving their marital bond. The primary reason that necessitated the divorce is the couple’s incapacity to continue their marital relationship, which has been severely affected by health problems and impotency. Both parties are unequivocally in agreement about their decision to divorce, and there seems to be no possibility of reconciliation. Their mutual consent for divorce underscores the irreparable breakdown of their marriage. Further adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that the petitioner No.2, who is forty (40) years old, has received marriage proposals and is keen on remarrying. Her decision is fuelled by the potential biological complications associated with pregnancies at her age. She is acutely aware of the higher risks of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery that can occur with pregnancies at her age. Therefore, she wishes to remarry as soon as possible to mitigate these risks at the earliest. Since they have already completed their ten (10) months waiting period and just about two (02) months time is left to complete the waiting period. Hence, they already waited for the substantial part of the statutory waiting period.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification

Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

Sreenivas Motupalli Vs Anjana Taggarse Motupalli on 15 Oct 2024

Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025

Mohd. Ghouse Khan Vs State of Telangana on 15 Oct 2019

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024

Yerramilli Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and 2 Ors on 09 Jan 2023

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024