Back
grants actor Duniya Vijay divorce on awards Rs 2 crore alimony
In a landmark judgment that underscores the duty of public figures to uphold matrimonial obligations, the granted a to Kannada actor B.R. Vijay Kumar, popularly known as Duniya Vijay, on the ground of . A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan also awarded Rs 2 crore as to his estranged wife, Nagarathna, while dissolving the marriage solemnized in 1999.
The court observed that fame does not create an exception to a person’s conduct but magnifies its standard, and that respect earned on screen cannot compensate for dereliction of matrimonial duties at home.
Case Background: A Decade-Long Marital Discord
The couple married on , and have three children, all now majors. After Duniya Vijay entered the Kannada film industry with the hit Duniya , the marriage began to sour. The actor filed an initial divorce petition in , which was withdrawn after and a in . The couple resumed cohabitation but it lasted only about one and a half years.
In , the parties executed a , which recorded that the marriage was not happy and that the wife had no objection to the husband remarrying. The agreement required the husband to transfer the to the wife, clear loans, pay Rs 50,000 per month, and pay Rs 1 crore from future movie earnings. The couple separated again in , with the wife retaining the . The husband filed a second divorce petition in , which was dismissed by the in , prompting the present appeal.
Arguments: Unsubstantiated Allegations vs. Intimate Relationship
The petitioner husband claimed and , citing repeated false allegations by the wife in the media—that he had five wives—and her persistent public statements linking him to multiple women, including costume designer Keerthi Gowda. He also alleged that the wife mistreated his parents, forced them to live separately, and instigated their children to file complaints against him. The husband’s driver (PW-2) corroborated claims of the wife’s mistreatment and her exclusive interest in the husband’s wealth.
The respondent wife denied all allegations, asserting that the couple lived together happily until 2018. She admitted to making media statements but claimed she was coerced by media outlets. During cross-examination, she admitted that the husband had a close relationship with Keerthi Gowda and that she had earlier alleged a bigamous relationship with Shubha Poonja. However, no concrete evidence of a second marriage was produced.
Legal Analysis: Not Proven, Established
The court first examined the ground of . Citing and , it held that the petitioner must prove both factum of separation and (intention to permanently end cohabitation). While the husband claimed the wife drove him out of the in , the court noted that bars a petitioner from taking advantage of his own wrong. Referring to the petitioner’s intimate relationship with Keerthi Gowda—evidenced by photographs, video clips, and the petitioner’s own statements calling her his wife—the court held that the husband’s own conduct undermined his claim of being willing to resume marital obligations. Thus, the ground of failed.
On , the court applied the tests from , , and . It found that the wife’s persistent media allegations that the husband had five wives were baseless, except with regard to Keerthi Gowda, where the husband’s own conduct provided some basis. However, the court emphasized that making unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital affairs before the media constitutes , especially for a public figure whose livelihood depends on reputation. The wife also signed and supported complaints filed by their minor daughter before the and the .
The court further noted that the wife created an “intolerable environment” for the husband’s parents, compelling them to execute Wills in specifically barring her from attending their funerals. The parents’ subsequent deaths in were attributed by the husband to the wife’s , though the court did not make a direct causal finding. The wife also physically assaulted the husband’s mother and a visitor (Keerthi Gowda) in , though she was acquitted in criminal proceedings due to the complainant turning hostile.
Considering the cumulative impact of these acts—media vilification, multiple complaints, parental mistreatment, and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—the court concluded that it would be “ itself” to keep the legal fiction of marriage alive. It drew support from and .
Key Observations
The court made several notable observations:
“Fame does not create an exception to a person’s conduct but it magnifies its standard. When a man of public influence strays from the sanctity of marriage, his fall from grace does not become a cause for adulation.”
“If the husband, by his own conduct, projects a third person as occupying the place of a wife or is otherwise involved intimately with the third person, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that his legally wedded spouse had deserted him without his consent.”
“No parent takes the drastic step of formally recording their wish to exclude their daughter-in-law from their own funeral… The very fact that the parents considered it necessary to formally record such a wish is itself indicative of the extent of the animosity and distress that must have been occasioned to them by the conduct of the Respondent.”
“A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with .”
Court's Decision: Divorce Granted with Rs 2 Crore Alimony
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ’s order. It dissolved the marriage on the ground of under with effect from the date of the decree. The court declined to grant divorce on the ground of , finding that the husband’s own conduct stood in the way.
Regarding , the court noted that neither party had filed financial statements, but considering the husband’s film career (his films are “admittedly well received”), the need to secure the wife’s financial stability, and the three children’s education and marriage expenses, it deemed Rs 2 crore as a appropriate. The husband must pay this amount within three months of receiving the order, failing which from the decree date will accrue. The court emphasized that the earlier ’s financial terms (transfer of house, monthly payments) remain unaffected.
