LiveLaw Telangana High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95Nominal IndexXXXXX v. XXXXX 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80Smt. K. Kalyani & Ors. v. The Managing Director & CDO, HRD Department & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 81Sri Nandasu Laxmidas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 82Jogaram Lohar v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 83Kanakati Naresh v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 84Peddi Sudershan Reddy v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 85Vijay Gopal v. Bar Council of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 86 Seeloju Shiva Kumar v. State of Telangana and another 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 87Mr. Konda Hemanth Kumar v. State of Telangana & Anr. and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 88Munna Mohammed Ghouse & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 89Dr. Goteti Ravindranath v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 90J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91M/s. Divyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association v. Mr. Gowtham Potru & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 93Nagilla Srinivas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 92Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94Jyothi Estates v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 95Judgments/ Orders This MonthWrong Date Of Birth In Matrimonial Profile Leading To Horoscope Mismatch Amounts To Fraud: Telangana HC Grants DivorceCase Title: XXXXX v. XXXXXCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78The Telangana High Court has granted divorce to a woman who alleged that her husband had fraudulently misrepresented his age on a matrimonial website, resulting in an incorrect horoscope match and an arranged marriage solemnised under a mistaken belief regarding compatibility.A Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed that the husband had furnished a wrong date of birth on the matrimonial portal, which led the wife and her family to obtain horoscope matching based on incorrect particulars. Allowing the appeal, the Court dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce.Posting Objectionable Messages On WhatsApp Group Against Local Leader May Threaten Public Peace: Telangana HC Refuses To Quash CaseCase Title: Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79The Telangana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of posting objectionable messages in a WhatsApp group against a local political leader and TRS leaders, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) and 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence. language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the IPC.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed:“In the present case also the petitioner has shared a message on the WhatsApp group, which is a prominent social media and thus, the petitioner is not justified in posting objectionable messages in the WhatsApp group. The allegations point out that the said message would harm the reputation and tarnish the image of the de facto complainant. Since the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed. The veracity of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out after a full-fledged trial.”Mere Criticism Of Public Representative In Private WhatsApp Group Not A Criminal Offence: Telangana High CourtCase Title: Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80The Telangana High Court has allowed a criminal revision filed by an accused who was prosecuted over messages posted in a WhatsApp group against a public representative, holding that mere criticism in a private social media group would not, by itself, constitute offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b) and 506 IPC unless the essential ingredients of the offences are made out. These Sections of the IPC cover the offences of intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace, public mischief, and criminal intimidation respectively.A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed:“Mere expression of criticism, particularly in a private social media group, would not by itself constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged unless the prosecution establishes the essential elements required under the respective provisions of law.”The Court was dealing with a criminal revision challenging the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the accused's discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC.Telangana High Court Directs SBI To Grant VRS Benefits To Legal Heirs Of Employee Who Died After VRS Application Was AcceptedCase Title:...

LiveLaw Telangana High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

LiveLaw Telangana High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers