Karnataka HC: Spouse Cannot Walk Out of Marriage Merely by Claiming Loss of Interest

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has held that a spouse cannot exit a marriage and claim a decree of divorce simply by asserting that he no longer has any interest in continuing the relationship, reaffirming that a marriage solemnised under Hindu law is a sacrament rather than a contract that can be terminated at will.

A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf was hearing a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment and decree of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, which had dismissed the appellant-husband's petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife had married on 15.12.2003 in an inter-caste love marriage, and a daughter, now almost a major, was born from the wedlock. The couple had earlier been before the Family Court in cross petitions: the husband had sought divorce in M.C.No.381/2019, while the wife had sought restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.857/2019. Both matters were clubbed and decided by a common judgment, which allowed the wife's petition for restitution and dismissed the husband's petition for divorce.

The husband thereafter filed a fresh petition, being M.C.No.404/2024, contending that despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the parties had made no effort to resume their conjugal life and continued to live separately at Mysuru. He alleged that despite his sincere efforts and repeated requests, the wife neither responded nor came to join him, and that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

The respondent-wife opposed the petition, asserting that she had looked after the appellant and his parents with love and care. She explained that the couple lived on the first floor of the family house on the advice of the appellant's parents, for the purpose of offering prayers and preparing food, since she belonged to the Brahmin caste, but that she had never insisted on a separate residence. She denied any incompatibility between the parties and denied ever having quarrelled with the appellant or his family.

The Family Court had framed the points for consideration as to whether the wife was the appellant's legally wedded wife and whether the appellant was entitled to divorce on the ground of non-resumption of marital life even after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence, the Family Court held that the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was not proved, and noted that the appellant had, in his own cross-examination, admitted that he was simply not interested in resuming his marital life with the respondent.

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had no interest whatsoever in continuing the marital relationship, the marriage was, for all practical purposes, dead, and a decree of divorce ought to be granted on that basis.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court observed that the appellant was seeking to take advantage of his own wrong, having fathered a child with the respondent and having failed, despite an earlier decree of restitution of conjugal rights, to resume cohabitation. The Court held that:

The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party.

Finding no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Family Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal, and consequently disposed of all pending interlocutory applications.

Case Title: Sri Manjukiran vs. Smt. Bindu M B, MFA No. 4343 of 2026 (FC)