Case at a Glance
A Kannada film actor married since 1999 sought divorce for cruelty and desertion. The Family Court, Bengaluru, dismissed his petition in 2024. The Karnataka High Court reversed it on cruelty. It held that the wife's repeated, unsubstantiated statements in media interviews about multiple marriages and relationships, her complaints, and her ill-treatment of his parents together amounted to cruelty. Desertion failed because the husband's own conduct showed he was unwilling to resume cohabitation. The marriage was dissolved, and he was directed to pay ₹2 crore as permanent alimony within three months.
Background
The parties married on 29 August 1999 at Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, and have three adult children. An earlier divorce petition and the wife's restitution petition were withdrawn after a 2014 mediation settlement. A 2016 agreement recorded that the marriage was unhappy. The husband said he was forced out of the home in May 2016, and his parents' wills of April 2016 barred the wife from their funerals.
The husband filed M.C. No. 5779/2018 on 29 October 2018 under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife gave media interviews alleging multiple marriages and relationships and filed complaints, including a bigamy complaint later dismissed for non-prosecution. On 13 June 2024 the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, dismissed the petition.
The Question Before the Court
Did the wife's public allegations, complaints and conduct towards the husband's parents amount to cruelty, and was desertion proved?
Cruelty Proved, Desertion Not
On desertion, the Court found that the husband's own conduct, including his relationship with another woman, showed he was not willing to resume cohabitation; under Section 23(1)(a) he could not take advantage of his own wrong. That ground failed.
On cruelty, applying V. Bhagat, Samar Ghosh, K. Srinivas Rao, Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate and other Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that the wife's unsubstantiated allegations of multiple marriages and affairs made in media interviews, her persistent public statements and complaints, and her ill-treatment of his parents amounted to cruelty. The Family Court had been wrong to excuse the media statements because she had not called the media herself. Assessing alimony under Rajnesh v. Neha, and noting the transfer of the dwelling house to the wife, the Court dissolved the marriage and fixed ₹2 crore as permanent alimony payable within three months, with 6% interest on default.
What the Court Held
- Desertion was not proved; the husband could not take advantage of his own wrong.
- Unsubstantiated allegations made in media interviews amounted to cruelty.
- Persistent complaints and ill-treatment of his parents added to the cruelty.
- The marriage was dissolved, with ₹2 crore permanent alimony within three months.
Why It Matters
- Public accusations through the media can be matrimonial cruelty.
- A spouse who caused the separation cannot claim desertion.
- High-profile divorces still carry substantial financial provision.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Avoid airing matrimonial allegations in the media.
- Your own conduct can defeat a desertion claim.
For counsel
- Prove media statements through transcripts and recordings.
- Present each ground separately; one may succeed where another fails.
Key Takeaways
- Media allegations were cruelty.
- Desertion rejected.
- Marriage dissolved.
- ₹2 crore alimony.
FAQs
Why did desertion fail?
The husband's own conduct showed he did not want to resume cohabitation.
What counted as cruelty?
Unsubstantiated allegations in media interviews, repeated complaints, and ill-treatment of his parents.
How much alimony was ordered?
₹2 crore within three months, with 6% interest on default.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court held that a spouse's campaign of public allegations can be cruelty, while refusing the husband relief on a ground his own conduct undermined.
Practical takeaway: what is said in public can decide what happens in court.