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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26638

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, Chillakur Sumalatha, JJ
Sudha – Appellant
Versus
Rajsakar – Respondent
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200082 OF 2017 (FC)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Hanamanthraya Sindol
For the Respondents: Smt. Neeva M. Chimkod (Absent)

In matrimonial proceedings, findings of cruelty and desertion must be based on cogent evidence and consistent application of evidentiary standards; uncorroborated allegations without supporting circumstances are insufficient to sustain such findings.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) - Cruelty and Desertion - Divorce decree set aside and remanded - The Family Court accepted husband's uncorroborated allegations of cruelty without independent evidence - The court found such acceptance shifted evidentiary threshold from proof to mere allegation, impermissible in law. (Paras 21.1 to 21.12)

(B) Desertion - The wife's defence that husband was living with another woman was rejected by Family Court for lack of evidence, while husband's similar lack of evidence was overlooked - The appellate court held that such inconsistent evidentiary standards vitiate findings. (Paras 22.1 to 22.14)

(C) The wife sought to produce additional evidence of husband's alleged extra-marital relationship and children - The court allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, subject to proof and admissibility. (Paras 22.9, 22.10)

Facts of the case:
The marriage between appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnised on 16.06.2002. Two sons were born. The husband filed MC No.10/2009 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging the wife made false accusations including that he had HIV/AIDS and used abusive language. The wife denied allegations and contended that husband had an illicit relationship and drove her out. The Family Court accepted husband's version and granted divorce. The wife appealed.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the Family Court's findings on cruelty and desertion unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistent application of evidentiary standards. The decree was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity to adduce additional evidence.

Issues: Whether cruelty was proved without independent evidence; whether desertion could be found when husband allegedly lived with another woman; whether the divorce decree was legally infirm.

Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty allegations in matrimonial proceedings, especially of a serious and stigmatic nature, require at least some corroborative material or supporting circumstances to sustain a finding - bare uncorroborated testimony is insufficient. Desertion requires both factum of separation and animus deserendi; if the spouse has reasonable cause to live separately (such as the other's extra-marital relationship), desertion is not made out.

Result: Appeal allowed; decree set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. marriage and initial marital discord leading to cross-petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. family court's findings on cruelty and desertion based on husband's uncorroborated testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. appellant's arguments challenging family court's evidentiary approach. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
4. requirement of corroboration for serious cruelty allegations. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. desertion negated by reasonable cause like spouse's extra-marital relationship. (Para 22)
6. judgment set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration with additional evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The appellant/wife who was respondent in M.C.No.10/2009 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Call for the lower court records.

ii. Allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated: 05.12.2016 passed in M.C.No.10 of 2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Bidar.

iii. Cost of the proceedings may kindly be decreed.

iv. Any other relief which is legally and equitably entitled by the appellant may also be awarded in favour of the appellant in the interest of justice.

2. The respondent–husband instituted proceedings in M.C. No.10/2009 seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the appellant–wife and the respondent–husband was solemnised on 16.06.2002 at Talmadgi Village, Humnabad Taluk, in accordance with the customs and rituals prevailing in their community. It is not in dispute that the parties cohabited after marriage and were blessed with two sons.

4. According to the husband, the marital relationship was cordial for about three years, thereafter disputes arose between the parties. It is his case that the wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents, taking along the custody of the children. Despite repeated requests made by him, she did not resume cohabitation. The husband, who was in service and posted at different places, contends that the wife consistently refused to join him.

5. It is further stated that the husband had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the wife had initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. The wife is stated to be employed as a Principal in a school and residing at her parental home.

6. The husband further alleged that the wife made false and defamatory accusations against him, including allegations of an illicit relationship with another woman and that he was suffering from HIV/AIDS. It is also alleged that the wife and her father abused him and refused to send her back to the matrimonial home. On these grounds, the husband sought dissolution of marriage.

7. The appellant–wife entered appearance and filed her statement of objections denying the allegations. While admitting the marriage and birth of two children, she contended that it was the husband who subjected her to ill-treatment and developed an illicit relationship with another woman, thereby compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents.

8. She further contended that the husband neither cared for her nor for the children and failed to maintain them, which necessitated initiation of proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C. No.7/2007, it is stated, came to be dismissed. The wife also alleged that the husband had assaulted her, demanded money and a motorcycle, and continued to harass her despite intervention by her parents. It is further alleged that the husband, while working as a Statistical Inspector in the Tahsil Office at Bhalki, was residing with another woman and maintaining an illicit relations

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