Telangana High Court Weekly Round-Up : June 8 – June 14, 2026
Ananya Tangri
17 Jun 2026 1:38 PM IST
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78 - 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
Nominal Index
XXXXX v. XXXXX 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
Smt. K. Kalyani & Ors. v. The Managing Director & CDO, HRD Department & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
Sri Nandasu Laxmidas v. State of Telangana & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 78
The 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.
Case Title: Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 79
The 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.”
Case Title: Ganduri Krishna v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 80
The 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.
Case Title: Smt. K. Kalyani & Ors. v. The Managing Director & CDO, HRD Department & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 81
The Telangana High Court has directed the State Bank of India to extend Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased employee, observing that the employee's application had already been scrutinised and accepted before his death, and denial of benefits in such circumstances could not be justified.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed:
“When a VRS application filed by an applicant has not been scrutinized and is not yet accepted by the respondents, this Court can accept the contentions of the respondent authorities in the event of the applicant's death. However, in the present case, the applicant had applied for VRS, the withdrawal period had already expired, and the application had been scrutinized and accepted, and the same was informed to the concerned Branch. At that juncture, the applicant passed away. In these circumstances, this Court feels that the denial of VRS benefits to the petitioners cannot be justified.”
Case Title: Sri Nandasu Laxmidas v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 82
The Telangana High Court has declined to direct shifting of a telecommunication rooftop tower which had already been erected and functioning since 2014, but directed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to take steps for technological upgradation so as to reduce radiation levels and ensure that there are no health hazards to local residents.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed: “Though it is brought to the notice of this Court that in the recent past, new and advanced technologies have emerged which considerably reduce radiation levels from cell towers, since the subject cell tower has already been erected and has been functioning since 2014, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the cellular companies to shift the said towers. However, it would suffice to direct the respondent No.2-Corporation to issue appropriate directions to the respondent No.4-cellular company to upgrade its technology in accordance with the new emerging standards, so as to reduce radiation levels and to ensure that there are no health hazards to the local inhabitants.”
