SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S. G. PANDIT, GEETHA K.B., JJ.
A.S. Darshan, S/o. Shivanand – Petitioner 
Versus 
Smt. Amrutha, W/o. A.S. Darshan – Respondent 
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101284 OF 2016 C/W, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101122 OF 2016 
Decided On : 29-10-2025
Advocates Appeared : 
For the Petitioner : Sri. Jagadishgouda Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sri. M.M. Patil, Advocate

The court affirmed that substantiated evidence is crucial for claims of cruelty or adultery in marital disputes, ruling that unjustified abandonment entitled the wife to restitution of conjugal rights.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9, 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) - Appeal regarding restitution of conjugal rights and divorce. Wife filed for restitution after being sent to parental home by husband. Husband sought divorce alleging mental cruelty and adultery without proof. Court found husband's claims unsubstantiated, ruling that unjustified withdrawal of society entitled wife to restitution. (Paras 5-30)

(B) Restitution of conjugal rights - Legal basis for wife’s claim established based on husband's unwarranted withdrawal without lawful ground. (Paras 27-30)

(C) Divorce - Allegations of cruelty or adultery must be supported by credible evidence, which the husband failed to provide. (Paras 19-24)

Facts of the case:
The marriage occurred in 2008, followed by the birth of twin daughters. The husband's refusal to cohabit and subsequent divorce petition led to the wife's application for restitution.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the husband failed to substantiate claims of cruelty and confirmed the wife's entitlement to restitution.

Issues: The central issues were the husband's allegations of cruelty and the justification of the wife's application for restitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the husband had not provided sufficient evidence to support any grounds for divorce and had wrongfully abandoned his wife.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitions filed under family courts act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of the marriage and petitions. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments of the husband against restitution. (Para 9 , 12 , 13)
4. court's findings on the evidence presented. (Para 11 , 15 , 26 , 30)
5. failure to prove mental cruelty. (Para 21 , 22 , 25)
6. final decision on appeals and costs. (Para 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

MFA No.101284/2016 is filed under Sec.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2016 passed in MC No.90/2015 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and to dismiss the said petition by allowing this appeal with costs throughout.

2. MFA No.101122/2016 is filed under Sec.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2016 passed in MC No.109/2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag in a petition for dissolution of marriage and to grant decree of divorce by allowing this appeal with costs throughout.

3. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment passed in MC No.90/2015 and MC No.109/2015 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag. Hence, heard arguments commonly in both cases.

4. Parties would be referred to as husband and wife respectively for sake of convenience and clarity.

5. Wife has filed MC No.90/2015 under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), praying for restitution of conjugal rights.

6. Husband has filed MC No.109/2015, praying for a decree of divorce under Sec.13(1)(i) & (ia) of the Act.

7. The case of wife in both petitions in nutshell is that her marriage with husband took place on 23.04.2008 as per Hindu customs at Shubodaya Kalyana Mantap, Hassan in presence of elders. After the marriage, wife started residing with her husband at his place and due to wedlock; she has given birth to twin daughters on 07.03.2010 in her parental house and named them as Nemith and Nimish. Afterwards her husband never visited her house and she has completed her period of postpartum care (banantana) and came back to the house of her husband during August 2010. Only because wife has given birth to twin daughters, she was disrespected in the house of her husband by her husband and his mother–in-law and they were always telling that he would get divorce. Only with an intention to get the decree of divorce, i.e., to prove that she is not having good mental health by force, husband has taken her to Bengaluru; husband was always telling that she was not looking after the children well and assaulting them and abusing them. He was always suspecting the fidelity of the wife and checking her mobile phone and assaulting her, abusing her for small and petty reasons. He was not eating meals prepared by her. Hence, she informed these facts to her elders and they have advised the husband several times. But, he did not heed for their advice. Ultimately, husband quarreled with wife and sent her and their two daughters-Nemith and Nimish during March-2015 to her parental house and immediately, afterwards he sent divorce notice on 25.04.2015 through his advocate to the wife. On 01.05.2015, elders called them and advised them and in that meeting, the husband agreed to take his wife and children back to his house and hence the wife has not given any reply to his notice and waited for him. However, he has not come back; on the other hand, filed M.C.No.72/2015 before the Family Court, Hassan. However, wife intends and is willing to live with her husband and hence she has filed this petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

8. Husband had filed M.C.No.72/2015 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan under Sec.13(1)(i), (ii )& (v) of the Act, praying for dissolution of his marriage with his wife. After filing this petition, it was transferred to Family Court, Gadag, as per Order passed in CP No.1074/2015 and was then re-numbered as MC No.109/20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top