The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Family Court order that denied divorce to a husband who accused his wife of cruelty and desertion. A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed his appeal on September 17, 2026, holding that neither ground had been proved.
Background
The couple married on September 26, 2014, in Davanagere, in what was described as a love-cum-arranged marriage. They have a son, now about 11 years old. The husband said the first year was happy. After that, he claimed, his wife neglected her duties, often visited her parents’ home without telling him, and kept pressing him to live separately from his aged parents. As the only son, he said, he could not agree.
He also alleged that she took their four-month-old child to Hyderabad without his consent. According to him, community meetings failed. Even after a compromise in earlier proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights (a case asking the spouse to return to the marital home), she allegedly left on November 27, 2016. He filed for divorce on December 15, 2016.
The wife denied these claims. She said her parents had paid Rs 3,00,000 as dowry, and that it was the husband who doubted her character and assaulted her over small matters. She said she put up with it for the child’s future.
The Family Court in Davanagere dismissed the petition on September 6, 2021. It found the cruelty allegations vague and unsupported by specific instances. On desertion, it noted that the wife had admitted living at her parents’ home since November 27, 2016. But the divorce petition was filed less than three weeks later, so the required two continuous years of separation had not passed.
The High Court agreed with this reasoning. It said the husband’s oral and documentary evidence, including records of the earlier proceedings and the wedding invitation card, did not back his claims. The Bench said:
“Ordinary wear and tear and quarrels arising in the course of matrimonial life do not, by themselves, amount to cruelty. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.”
On desertion, the Court pointed to the husband’s own cross-examination. He had said that even if his wife were willing to return, she was “not necessary” for him. His sister, when asked the same, said the decision was “left to her”.
The Court read these answers along with the wife’s consistent stand that she was willing to resume living together. It held that nothing showed she meant to end the marriage permanently.
Concluding the matter, the Bench observed:
“We are, therefore, in agreement with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or mis-appreciation of evidence warranting interference with the impugned judgment and decree.”
The appeal was dismissed and the Family Court’s judgment of September 6, 2021, was confirmed.
