A division bench upholds family court’s refusal to dissolve marriage, emphasising that unproven allegations of infidelity can amount to mental cruelty and justify living apart, not desertion under Hindu Marriage Act.
Bengaluru, India : The Karnataka High Court on 17 February 2026 upheld a family court order denying a husband’s plea for divorce on the ground of desertion, holding that merely accusing a wife of an extra-marital affair, without proof, can itself constitute mental cruelty and may explain why spouses live separately.
The ruling came from a two-judge Division Bench comprising Justices Jayant Banerji and T.M. Nadaf while hearing an appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(b) from a husband challenging the family court’s judgment dismissing his divorce petition.
Case Background
In the original family court proceedings, the husband sought a divorce from his wife on the ground of desertion, alleging that she had been in an extra-marital relationship and left the matrimonial home in April 2015 after that alleged relationship came to light. The husband’s claim was that his wife’s conduct amounted to desertion and thus justified dissolution of marriage.
The family court, however, dismissed his divorce petition, holding that mere separation without establishing the necessary animus (intention) to desert was not sufficient to prove desertion under the statute. The husband then challenged this dismissal in the High Court.
Legal Issue
The issue before the Division Bench was whether the husband had made out a prima facie case for divorce on the ground of desertion by demonstrating that the wife left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause or consent and with an intention never to return. Additionally, the bench examined whether allegations of an extra-marital affair, when unsubstantiated, could themselves constitute mental cruelty and provide a reasonable cause for living separately.
Bench’s Observations and Reasoning
The High Court agreed with the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and legal principles, emphasising that:
- Desertion under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act requires proof of both living apart without reasonable cause and animus (intentional abandonment). Evidence must show that one spouse intentionally and without justification refrained from cohabitation.
- Mere long separation, when unaccompanied by proof of intention to repudiate the marriage, does not necessarily amount to desertion.
- The trial court had correctly found that the husband failed to discharge the burden of proof on him to establish desertion.
- Importantly, the High Court observed that an allegation of an extra-marital affair, when made without cogent evidence, could itself amount to mental cruelty, providing a reasonable cause for the spouse to choose to live apart, rather than constituting desertion.
In these circumstances, the bench found “force” in the family court’s decision, observing that the husband had not adduced substantial evidence to prove either the alleged affair or the existence of animus to desert.
Final Ruling
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, thereby upholding the family court’s order that refused to grant a divorce on the ground of desertion.
The bench held that the legal threshold required to demonstrate desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act was not crossed, and that the mere accusation of infidelity, in absence of evidence, could amount to cruelty justifying the wife’s choice to live separately.
Practical Implications
- This judgment reinforces that desertion requires factual proof of intention to abandon marital obligations, and cannot be inferred solely from living apart or unproven allegations of misconduct.
- Courts may consider mental cruelty arising from unsubstantiated accusations as a reasonable cause for separation rather than desertion, affecting how divorce petitions based on separation are assessed.
- The ruling may discourage parties from relying excessively on allegations of extra-marital conduct in divorce petitions without solid evidence, as such allegations may instead be construed as cruelty rather than grounds for desertion.
The judgment adds clarity on the evidentiary requirements to establish desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the legal distinction between separation caused by unproven allegations of infidelity and actual desertion.
