"No Interest in Marriage" Is Not a Ground for Divorce, Karnataka HC Tells Husband After 21 Years of Wedlock

A Karnataka High Court Division Bench dismissed a husband's divorce appeal, holding that a spouse cannot exit a Hindu marriage merely by claiming loss of interest in matrimonial life.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed a husband's appeal against the rejection of his divorce petition, ruling on 15 July 2026 that a person cannot walk away from a Hindu marriage simply because he has lost interest in it. The Bench, comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf, affirmed the Family Court's finding that the husband had candidly admitted in cross-examination that he had no desire to resume marital life — making him, in the court's view, a party seeking to take advantage of his own wrong. The judgment reinforces that under Hindu law, marriage is a sacrament and not a contract terminable at will by one spouse's disengagement.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Sri Manjukiran and Smt. Bindu M B were married on 15 December 2003. The marriage was a love marriage and also an inter-caste marriage. A daughter was born of the union, who is now almost an adult. The couple's matrimonial disputes stretch back several years: Manjukiran had earlier filed M.C. No. 381/2019 seeking divorce, while Bindu simultaneously filed M.C. No. 857/2019 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Both petitions were clubbed and decided by a common judgment. The Family Court dismissed Manjukiran's divorce petition and allowed Bindu's restitution petition. Despite that decree of restitution of conjugal rights, neither party made efforts to re-establish their conjugal life. They continued to live separately at their respective addresses in Mysuru.

Manjukiran then filed a fresh petition, M.C. No. 404/2024, before the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, seeking divorce on the grounds stated in Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act — which provides for divorce where there has been no resumption of cohabitation after a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed this petition by its judgment dated 6 March 2026. Manjukiran challenged that dismissal before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as MFA No. 4343 of 2026.

What Section 13(1A) Requires and What the Family Court Found

Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits either spouse to seek divorce if there has been no resumption of cohabitation for one year or more after a decree of judicial separation, or no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after a decree to that effect. Manjukiran relied on the latter limb, arguing that despite a decree of restitution having been passed against him, the parties never resumed cohabitation.

The Family Court framed three specific points for consideration: whether Manjukiran had proved that Bindu was his legally wedded wife; whether he was entitled to divorce on the ground of non-resumption of marriage after the restitution decree; and what order or decree should follow.

On examining the pleadings, evidence, and the depositions of both parties, the Family Court held that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act had not been proved against Bindu. Critically, Manjukiran himself admitted in cross-examination that he had not resumed marital life because he was not interested in doing so. The Family Court dismissed the petition. Bindu, in her statement of objections, had denied all allegations and stated that she had cared for Manjukiran and his parents and had never demanded a separate residence despite the couple living on the first floor of the family house — an arrangement made at the advice of his parents because of differences in caste and food practices.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

Before the High Court, counsel for Manjukiran argued that for all practical purposes the marriage was dead and that a decree of divorce should be granted. The Bench was unpersuaded.

Justice D K Singh, authoring the oral judgment, found that Manjukiran was attempting to take advantage of his own wrong. The court observed that the very person who had entered into the love marriage and fathered a daughter now sought to exit the marriage on the sole basis that he retained no interest in it.

The Bench held that “marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract.” Once parties are married, the court stated, the marriage is for life, and one party cannot unilaterally walk away simply on the ground that he or she has lost interest in the other. The admission by Manjukiran that he had no interest in resuming marital life was therefore fatal to his case rather than a basis for relief.

The Bench found no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Mysuru, and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

Outcome

MFA No. 4343 of 2026 was dismissed by the Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf on 15 July 2026. The judgment and decree of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, dated 6 March 2026, dismissing M.C. No. 404/2024, stands confirmed. All pending interlocutory applications in the appeal were disposed of as not surviving for consideration in view of the dismissal.