Wife’s Divorce Appeal Fails As Karnataka HC Finds Harassment And Forced Separation Unproved

The wife filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion.

She alleged that her husband harassed her, demanded money and gold, took her salary, and refused to resume cohabitation; the parties have a son.

The husband denied the allegations and maintained that the parties had lived together and that he had supported the wife.

The Family Court dismissed the petition.

On appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, the wife challenged that decision.

1. Whether the Family Court properly appreciated the materials available on record.

2. Whether the Family Court’s judgment dismissing the divorce petition warranted interference.

Under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, desertion must be established for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding presentation of the petition.

The Court stated that matrimonial pleadings must be considered by their substance, not merely by the statutory provision cited; allegations of harassment may be relevant to whether a spouse had reasonable cause to live separately.

However, a decree on cruelty as an independent ground ordinarily requires adequate pleadings and a fair opportunity for the opposing party to meet that case.

Oral evidence of matrimonial abuse must be assessed with care; lack of corroboration alone does not justify rejecting otherwise credible testimony, and delay in making a complaint is not, by itself, a basis to disbelieve the complainant.

The Court considered the pleaded desertion claim alongside the wife’s allegations of harassment, which the husband had denied.

It found material allegations in her examination-in-chief—including suspicion of infidelity and an assault after a panchayat—had not been pleaded, and therefore treated those improvements cautiously.

The Court also weighed the delayed police complaint, the absence of testimony from family members said to have been told of the incident, and the photographs, whose timing and circumstances were not established; it did not treat any one of these matters as conclusive.

It further considered inconsistencies in the wife’s account of the fixed deposit, evidence that the husband had held work-related positions and owned agricultural land, and the lack of supporting bank records for the alleged withdrawal of her salary.

On the record as a whole, the Court found the allegations of harassment and the claim that the wife had been compelled to leave the matrimonial home insufficiently established.

It held that the Family Court was justified in dismissing the petition and dismissed the wife’s appeal, leaving the judgment and decree dated 16 April 2025 undisturbed.