The Telangana High Court has granted divorce to a couple after 16 years of separation, holding that a false criminal complaint against the husband and his family, coupled with prolonged separation, amounted to mental cruelty. The court set aside the family court’s earlier dismissal of his petition.Dealing with a plea of husband, a bench of Justices K Lakshman and B R Madhusudhan Rao said that the conduct of the parties clearly indicates that there is no intention on either side to lead a marital life.“It is apt to note that when the petition was filed, the appellant was 33 years old and the respondent was 27 years old. At present, they are 49 years old and 42 years old, respectively. They have been living separately for approximately 16 years. The appellant has categorically stated that he is not willing to resume cohabitation or take her back into his society,” the September 18 order reads.The bench further noted that the couple had been living separately for around 16 years, neither had made a genuine effort to resume living together, and the husband had clearly stated that he was unwilling to take the wife back. The court held that continuation of the marriage would serve no meaningful purpose and would cause mental cruelty to both parties.Husband sought divorce over ‘cruelty’The petitioner-husband has filed a plea challenging the 2017 order of the family court which dismissed his petition seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. Justices K Lakshman and B R Madhusudhan Rao noted that the wife’s allegations of dowry harassment and possession of her jewellery were ‘vague’.The couple got married in 2007. The husband sought divorce, claiming that after three to four months of marriage, the wife started harassing and torturing him, and insisted that he should become a “puppet husband”. He stated that she stopped performing her “matrimonial obligations”.The petitioner alleged that when he refused to accede to her demands, she physically assaulted him. He further alleged that her parents assured him that they would counsel her and took her away for around 10 days, but when she returned, she resumed abusing and harassing him.Story continues below this adAlso Read | ‘Can get parole for own wedding’: Karnataka High Court allows murder convict 15 daysAccording to the husband, the two started living separately in the same house in separate rooms from 2008. He claimed that in 2009, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home.The wife denied the allegations and, in turn, accused the husband and his family of harassment, physical abuse, and interference in their marital life. She alleged that her mother-in-law and other family members subjected her to harassment and that the husband had also physically assaulted her.The matrimonial dispute escalated in 2010 after the wife and her father approached the women’s protection cell, following which a criminal complaint was lodged against the husband and his family for cruelty and under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband then filed the divorce petition in 2010, alleging cruelty.The family court initially dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, holding that he had failed to establish cruelty through clear evidence. He challenged that decision before the high court. On the other hand, the criminal case against the husband and his family ended in acquittal in 2020, and the acquittal was upheld in 2025 following a plea.Story continues below this adWife’s dowry claims unsupported: OrderThe high court observed that cruelty is not defined by statute and whether a particular act amounts to cruelty depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It said the court must consider the parties’ background, social and economic circumstances, values and the overall conduct between them.The ruling stressed that the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct has to be considered rather than examining individual incidents in isolation. Persistent quarrels, humiliating treatment, mental harassment, abusive language, disrespectful behaviour, unilateral desertion and false accusations may constitute cruelty, while ordinary disagreements or petty quarrels would not.The bench also noted that the wife’s allegations of dowry harassment and possession of her jewellery were “vague or unsupported”. The dowry allegation was raised for the first time during cross-examination, without details of any specific demand, while her claim regarding jewellery was found inconsistent with her own statement about having the keys to her almirah.Also Read | Insurer denies woman’s death claim over ‘hidden illness’, son secures Rs 5 lakh payoutThe court held that the criminal complaint lodged by the wife against the husband and his family, which ended in acquittal and was also upheld in appeal, could be considered as subsequent evidence of cruelty. “It is a well-settled legal position that when a criminal case ends in acquittal, it can be considered as a ground for cruelty,” it concluded.Story continues below this adThe court clarified that subsequent events and the conduct of parties can be considered while examining a claim of cruelty. In this case, although the husband’s own testimony was alone not enough to establish cruelty, the later acquittal in the criminal case, coupled with the wife’s contradictory statements, supported his case.