Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court while reprimanding the trial court for granting ad-interim injunction that effectively curtailed the fundamental mobility and access of wife to her husband, has set aside the “unusual and unprecedented” ” injunction. Further, the Bench categorically observed that interim reliefs should not bypass the rigorous standards required for a final decree of judicial separation or divorce.

The Bench held that mental disorder claims must be based on medical or expert evidence, cautioning that labeling individuals on “radical assumptions should be avoided at all costs since they would have an indelible impact on an individual’s life” and can seriously harm their social and professional standing.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar categorically observed, “…the wife has been restrained from going anywhere near the husband, his home or work place during pendency of the Divorce Petition filed by the husband. To say the least, this kind of restraint is unusual and unprecedented. We are considering the lives of two individuals - and not chattels - whose movement or mobility can be blocked by orders of Court. Thwarting free access of one individual to another, that too married persons, requires a high benchmark of justification. The impugned order does not disclose any such credible reasons. Family Court matters are wholly different from and dissimilar to criminal matters where a person may be restrained from trespassing in another person’s territory based on the first person’s criminal history. Giving interviews on social media or filing criminal cases against the husband cannot justify with such severe consequences”.

Advocate S. Nagesh Reddy appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Avinash Desai appeared for the respondent.

The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married in December 2022 but began living separately in January 2024 following serious marital discord.

The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and claiming the wife suffered from an incurable mental disorder and "psychopathic behavior".

He subsequently moved an interlocutory application seeking to restrain the wife from entering his residence, workplace, or coming anywhere near him, citing instances of physical assault, verbal abuse, and public defamation through social media.

On September 8, 2025, the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, allowed the husband’s application, granting an ad-interim injunction against the wife. The Trial Court concluded, primarily based on the husband's allegations of daily domestic incidents and the wife’s conduct in filing criminal cases, that she suffered from a "psychic disorder" and posed a threat to the husband's life. Aggrieved by this restraint, the wife approached the High Court in appeal.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s order to be "unilateral, unreasonable, and unreasoned". The primary ratio established is that a court cannot arrive at a finding of "psychic" or "psychopathic" disorder in the absence of corroborated medical records or expert psychiatric testimony. The Bench observed that judges are not equipped to diagnose psychological conditions based on unpalatable domestic quarrels.

“…However, even dehors the evidence, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities, foremost among which is the automatic assumption that the wife needs to be restrained from going anywhere near the husband on account of behavioural and psychological issues. In effect, the wife has been convicted of the offence and declared guilty even without trial”, the Bench noted.

Such an order, the Bench reasoned, virtually grants the final relief of the divorce petition at an interim stage without the benefit of a full trial. The Court also noted that the Trial Court had ignored the wife’s pending petition for restitution of conjugal rights and failed to appreciate her defense, focusing solely on the husband’s narrative.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order dated September 8, 2025. All interim orders of restraint against the wife were vacated, and the connected applications were disposed of accordingly.

Cause Title: X v. Y (CMA No. 494 of 2025)

Appearances:

Appellant: S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate,

Respondent: Avinash Desai, Senior Advocate, P. Vishweswara Nikhil, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: