Divorce On Cruelty, No Divorce On Desertion, And Alimony Unasked
A film actor won his divorce appeal after eight years of litigation. The Karnataka High Court refused one of his grounds, criticised his conduct, and ordered him to pay his absent wife Rs 2 crore.
The Court held the husband could not claim desertion: a spouse intimately involved with a third person cannot say he was deserted, and cannot take advantage of his own wrong. But the wife's treatment of his parents, and a marriage broken beyond revival, amounted to cruelty. Divorce was granted, with Rs 2 crore permanent alimony — though she was absent and sought no money.
- Fame raises the standard. The Court opened by saying public respect cannot excuse dereliction at home.
- Section 23 blocks self-serving grounds — the Court refused desertion even though the wife did not contest it.
- A broken marriage can itself be cruelty, following Rakesh Raman v. Kavita.
- Alimony without a claim: the Court protected the wife and three children on its own.
- Court
- High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Bench
- Justice D K SINGH, Justice H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- Citation
- M.F.A. No. 6129 of 2024
- Case
- M.F.A. No. 6129 of 2024
- Decided
- 3 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; divorce granted on cruelty with Rs 2 crore permanent alimony
An eight-year fight
The couple married in 1999 and have three children, now adults. The husband, a film actor, first sought divorce in 2013; the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights. They resumed living together after he withdrew that petition.
In 2016 the parties signed a mutual consent agreement, and his parents each executed wills recording that they had been verbally abused by the wife and did not want her at their funerals. He filed the present petition in 2018 on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court dismissed it in 2024.
The wife did not appear before the High Court.
Why desertion failed
The Court reasoned that a husband who, by his own conduct, projects a third person as occupying the place of a wife, or is otherwise intimately involved with a third person, cannot then say that his wife deserted him without his consent.
Under Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, whether or not the point is defended, the Court must ensure the petitioner is not taking advantage of his own wrong. Desertion was not established.
The Court also said the husband's conduct with the third person might itself constitute an act of cruelty.
Why cruelty succeeded
The allegation that the wife abused his parents was corroborated by oral evidence and by the wills. No parent, the Court said, takes the drastic step of excluding a daughter-in-law from their funeral without real distress. Relying on Narendra, it held the intolerable environment created for his parents was cruelty.
Taken as a whole — accusations by both sides including before the media, the earlier divorce case, failed mediation, multiple rounds of litigation, and eight years apart — the marriage was beyond revival. Following Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, keeping such a marriage alive would itself be cruelty.
Divorce was granted under Section 13(1)(i-a). Citing Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian, and noting that he had already transferred the house to her, the Court ordered Rs 2,00,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony within three months, with 6 per cent interest after that, to secure the wife's and children's stability.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a court grant alimony when the wife has not asked for it?
Yes. The Court awarded Rs 2 crore as permanent alimony although the wife was absent and sought no monetary relief.
Can a husband get divorce on desertion if he was involved with someone else?
The Court held not: he cannot take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1).
In a contested divorce with a long history
- Choose grounds carefully — a ground built on the other side's reaction to your own conduct can fail under Section 23.
- Contemporaneous documents, like wills or agreements, can carry more weight than oral accounts.
- If you are the respondent, appear: the Court decided without the wife's case being argued.
- Expect the court to address alimony even if no one asks for it.
Source. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, M.F.A. No. 6129 of 2024, decided 3 September 2026 by Justice D K SINGH, Justice H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in