Telangana High Court Refuses to Annul Decade-old Marriage

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Friday rejected annulment of a ten-year-old marriage on the grounds that a husband cannot seek nullity just because his wife abandoned him on his wedding day. The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy, was hearing the Family Court Appeal filed by the husband challenging the dismissal of his petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration that the marriage solemnized in 2013 would be deemed null and void. According to the appellant husband, the marriage was the second marriage for both the parties and the respondent-wife left the company on the date of the wedding, expressing her reluctance to continue the relationship. Despite repeated attempts by him, his parents and elders, including visiting the respondent’s parents’ house and holding a panchayat in December 2013, his wife allegedly did not return, leading the respondent to seek an annulment. The Family Court rejected the case on the grounds that the husband had applied to the court within one month after the marriage, but this was not allowed under Article 14 of the Act, which prevents the filing of a divorce petition within one year after the marriage. The court noted that the husband attempted to circumvent this prohibition by framing the case as an action for annulment, without citing any legal grounds of invalidity. Hearing the appeal, Justice Lakshman, speaking on behalf of the bench, observed that Section 12(2)(b) applies only in cases where a marriage is sought to be annulled on the ground that the spouse was pregnant by someone else during the marriage. The record showed that the appellant did not raise this ground or any other ground under Section 12(1) in the petition for rescission. Deciding that the case did not fall into the category of invalid marriages stipulated in the Law, the board approved the reasoning of the Family Court and rejected the objection.

IOC Condemned for Cancelling Bunker Barge Transport Contract

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court condemned the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for canceling the bunker barge carriage contract awarded to a Visakhapatnam-based operator on the grounds that it was arbitrary, mechanical and in violation of an earlier court order. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Kesari Marine Services. IOCL had issued a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the petitioner in February followed by a work order in March. The company later canceled the LOA, claiming the barge could not be positioned within 30 days. In May, the Supreme Court found this cancellation unlawful, stating that the work order had been issued only 10 days before the alleged deadline and that IOCL had miscalculated the 30-day period. Despite the court’s earlier findings, IOCL reaffirmed the annulment on the same grounds. Justice Bheemapaka expressed his displeasure, observing that the company repeated the reasoning earlier rejected by the Court and acted “without the use of reason”. The judge clarified that the 30-day period from the LOA dated February 20 will end on March 22, as claimed by IOCL, and the technical capacity of the petitioner will never be questioned.

OU Directed to Consider Representation of Undergraduate Student Suspended from Nizam College

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed Osmania University to consider the representation of third class B.Sc. (MECS) Nizam College student was suspended from the college and hostel due to allegations of indiscipline and disorder. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by M. Harsha. The petitioner alleged that he was wrongfully involved in a hostel protest even though he did not participate and that the negatively worded restraining order and transfer certificate were issued without notice or inquiry in violation of natural justice. It was claimed that nearly 90 boarding house owners appealed to the authorities, stating that no assault had occurred. The petitioner’s lawyer requested that he be allowed to appear for the fifth semester examinations, which will begin in November. The respondents stated that the petitioner’s complaint may be referred to the Vice-Chancellor, who will examine the matter in accordance with the law. Recording these submissions, Justice Nanda directed the Vice-Chancellor to consider the representation expeditiously and take a decision after giving the student and the parties concerned an opportunity of personal hearing, keeping in mind the academic interests of the student.