Key words :- Karnataka High Court , Divorce Petition , Matrimonial Disputes .
Additionally, the Court observed that if a wife distances herself from her husband’s company and makes false accusations of extramarital affairs as a way to conceal her actions, this would also be considered as a form of cruelty.
The Karnataka High Court’s recent ruling states that a wife’s act of humiliating her husband by referring to his dark complexion is considered a form of cruelty.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the wife’s choice to separate herself from her husband’s company and falsely accuse him of engaging in extramarital relationships to divert attention constitutes cruelty. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Anant Ramanath Hegde, who granted the husband’s request for a divorce.
The Court addressed an appeal presented by the husband, challenging the ruling of a family court in Bengaluru that had rejected his request for marriage dissolution under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband had initiated divorce proceedings in 2012, alleging that his wife consistently belittled him due to his skin color.
Furthermore, the husband also claimed that his wife had filed a “false” complaint against him and his family members in 2011, invoking Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cruelty. He additionally asserted that his wife had moved out of their shared residence to live with her parents. In response, the wife denied these allegations and maintained that her husband had been involved in an extramarital relationship with another woman. She also argued that her husband had subjected her to physical violence and that her treatment by his family had been unsatisfactory.
Nevertheless, the Court determined that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the wife’s claim of her husband’s involvement in an extramarital affair. Consequently, the Court deemed these accusations as unfounded and without basis.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the family court had overlooked the detrimental effect of these unsubstantiated and thoughtless allegations on the husband’s reputation.
Additionally, the Court took note of the wife’s engagement in various legal proceedings against her husband and his family, as well as the absence of communication between the spouses for an extended period.
Accordingly, the Court reached the conclusion that the husband’s claims of cruelty were substantiated, leading to the acceptance of his request to terminate the marriage. As a result, the Court granted a divorce decree. Advocate Janardhana G represented the husband in the case, while Advocate D Bhuvaneshwari represented the wife.
Written by :- RATNESH TEMBE, College :- Law Department , PIMR , Indore ., An intern under LEGAL VIDHIYA.
0 Comments