Back
Baseless Affair Claims Backfire: Karnataka HC Rejects Husband's Divorce Bid on Desertion Grounds
In a significant ruling for family law, the dismissed an appeal by a husband seeking divorce, holding that his unproven allegations of his wife's extramarital affair amounted to —giving her valid reason to live separately. A division bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Banerji and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.M. Nadaf upheld the family court's order in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 918 of 2021 , emphasizing that mere separation without proven " deserendi" (intent to desert) does not suffice under .
From Wedded Bliss to Bitter Separation: The Couple's Rocky Timeline
The couple married on , in Chitradurga, Karnataka, and welcomed a daughter soon after. Harmony unraveled around , when the husband alleged his wife began frequent visits to her parental home post-childbirth and later insisted on a separate residence in Hassan. He claimed she developed an affair with a man named Mohan, evidenced by phone exchanges, leading her to leave the matrimonial home in upon discovery.
The wife retaliated by filing a criminal complaint under (cruelty) and , registered as CC No. 873/2016. After trial, the husband was acquitted. He then filed an earlier divorce petition, which he withdrew after the wife expressed willingness to reconcile—but she never returned. Efforts for reunion, including police mediation and a legal notice on , failed. In , he petitioned the (MC No. 45/) for divorce on desertion grounds. The ex-parte trial court dismissed it in , prompting this appeal.
Husband's Plea: Desertion Proven by Absence and Acquittal
The appellant-husband, represented by advocate , argued prolonged non-cohabitation since 2015 constituted desertion. He highlighted the acquittal in the 498A case, withdrawn prior petition (where wife initially agreed to divorce), failed reconciliation attempts, and documents (Exs. P1-P18), including witness PW-2 Mahesh. He urged recognizing the marriage's , faulting the trial court for fixating on a minor PW-2 slip about "restitution of conjugal rights."
Amicus Curiae Strikes Back: Accusations Are the Real Cruelty
With the wife absent throughout (ex-parte below and on appeal), , appointed amicus curiae on , robustly defended the trial court's view. She noted the petition's cruelty undertones masked as desertion, lack of proof for the affair, and how such accusations themselves inflicted mental torture—reasonable cause for separation. The acquittal stemmed from prosecution failure, not exonerating the husband, and no evidence explained the withdrawn petition or wife's "hostility" in the criminal trial. Mere self-serving statements couldn't meet the burden, even ex-parte.
Unpacking Desertion: Intent Matters More Than Time Apart
The bench dissected Section 13(1)(b) HMA , where "desertion" means living apart without reasonable cause, without consent, and against the spouse's wish (per Explanation). Mere years apart (here, since 2015) proves nothing without —intent to end marital ties. Citing the trial court's analysis (paras 14, 17-19), the HC agreed: no cogent evidence substantiated the affair; instead, baseless claims likely drove the separation.
The court stressed the petitioner's
persists regardless of opposition:
"The party litigant has to prove his case on the strength of his own by substantial evidence... irrespective of the question whether the other side has contested the case or not."
Unproven affair allegations? That's cruelty, flipping the narrative—wife had "reasonable cause" to stay away.
No precedents were directly invoked, but the ruling echoes trite law on desertion's strict elements, distinguishing it from (not yet a standalone ground in India absent mutual consent).
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On failed proof and cruelty flip :
"The trial Court in paragraph No.17 has clearly stated that despite taking the contention that the respondent is having extra marital relationship, but the petitioner has failed to prove the same by leading substantial evidence... allegation of extra marital relationship without proof would operate as and perhaps this may be the reason for the wife to live apart."
(Para 19) -
Defining desertion sharply :
"Desertion means a party to the marriage living apart without there being any reasonable cause and without consent or against the wish of other spouse."
(Para 20) -
Burden unshifted :
"Mere accusation of relationship with some other person itself is a and perhaps is the reasonable cause for the wife to live apart."
(Para 21) -
No interference warranted :
"The trial Court having considered the entire material placed before it dismissed the petition, on the failure of the petitioner-husband to prove the ingredients of desertion... with valid reasons."
(Para 22)
Appeal Dismissed: A Cautionary Tale for Divorce Seekers
The appeal stands dismissed, affirming no divorce. The bench appreciated the amicus curiae, directing Rs. 10,000 remuneration from .
This decision reinforces that divorce on desertion demands ironclad proof of willful abandonment, not just time apart. It cautions against weaponizing unverified infidelity claims, potentially harming the accuser's case. For future matrimonial battles, especially ex-parte, petitioners must lead "substantial evidence"—lest accusations boomerang as cruelty. As media reports noted, it underscores:
"Mere living separately... may not amount to desertion. What is important... is the
for separate living."
