The Karnataka High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted by the Family Court at Mangaluru after finding that the evidence established a sustained course of physical and mental cruelty in the matrimonial relationship. The Court, however, reduced the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from ₹2 crore to ₹50 lakh, observing that permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties.
The Division Bench Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan took into account the wife's independent income, professional qualification and financial assets while reconsidering the amount of alimony. The Court also directed the husband to pay ₹25,000 per month for each of their two minor children, with an annual enhancement of ₹5,000 per child.
Background Of The Case
The parties were college mates before marrying on May 23, 2011, at Mangaluru. They later moved to the United Kingdom and had two daughters. Over time, disputes developed between them, eventually leading to matrimonial and parental litigation in both India and the UK.
The wife approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She also sought permanent alimony under Section 25.
She alleged physical and mental cruelty, controlling behaviour, interference with her education and professional career, abusive conduct and hostility towards her parents. She relied heavily on WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the parties.
The husband denied the allegations and maintained that he had supported her education and career. He also sought restitution of conjugal rights, asking that the matrimonial relationship be restored.
The Family Court ultimately dissolved the marriage, rejected the husband's counter-claim and awarded ₹2 crore as permanent alimony. It also directed payment of maintenance for the two children.
Court's Observation
The High Court examined the WhatsApp conversations and other material placed before it. The Bench noted that some communications contained admissions and expressions of regret concerning the husband's conduct.
The Court held that the evidence could not be assessed by looking at individual incidents in isolation. Instead, the matrimonial relationship had to be considered as a whole and the cumulative effect of the conduct had to be examined.
The Bench also considered the parties' earlier reconciliation, counselling, subsequent cohabitation and birth of their second child. However, it found that these circumstances did not erase the later conduct or the continuing disputes between them.
"It is not merely a case of ordinary wear and tear of married life."
The Court further noted the prolonged litigation between the parties, including proceedings connected with their matrimonial and parental disputes in the United Kingdom. It observed that the relationship had deteriorated to a point where there was no meaningful possibility of restoration.
The Bench stated that while courts must exercise caution before ending a marriage, they cannot ignore the realities established by the evidence.
"The object of matrimonial jurisdiction is not to perpetuate a relationship which has become a continuing source of anguish and litigation, but to secure justice between the parties in accordance with law."
While upholding the divorce, the High Court disagreed with the Family Court's assessment of permanent alimony.
The Bench observed that permanent alimony is meant to provide reasonable financial security and is not intended to equalise the wealth or assets of the spouses. The wife's professional qualification, employment, independent income and financial assets were considered relevant factors.
The Court therefore reduced the permanent alimony from ₹2 crore to ₹50 lakh. The amount is to be paid within three months, failing which it will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the decree.
The High Court separately considered the children's maintenance. It directed payment of ₹25,000 per month for each child, totalling ₹50,000 per month, towards their maintenance, education, medical and other reasonable needs.
The amount will increase by ₹5,000 per month for each child after every year until the respective child reaches majority.
The mother was also granted exclusive physical custody, subject to visitation and access rights for the father. The father was permitted to spend three hours with the children every Saturday and Sunday in the mother's presence.
Decision
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the appeal. It upheld the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty but modified the financial directions by reducing permanent alimony to ₹50 lakh and fixing monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 for each child, with yearly enhancement.
Case Details
Case Title: X and Y
Case Number: MFA No. 1575/2026 (FC)
Judge: Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan
Decision Date: August 24, 2026
