Unsubstantiated Claims Of Mental Disorder Amount To Legal Cruelty: Karnataka High Court Upholds Grant Of Divorce
The Karnataka High Court was considering an appeal assailing the judgment passed by the Family Court.
While upholding an order of the Family Court granting divorce, the Karnataka High Court has observed that unsubstantiated claims of mental disorder or absent-mindedness amount to legal cruelty, as they attack a person’s core dignity and right to live a dignified, peaceful life on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Sec.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the judgment passed by the Family Court.
The Bench comprising Justice Ashok S. Kinagi and Justice Subramanya Rangarao held, “Unsubstantiated claims of mental disorder or absent-mindedness amount to legal cruelty, as they attack a person’s core dignity and right to live a dignified, peaceful life with reputation on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as such allegations would leave an unfavourable imprint on the life of a person in a civilized society”
Advocate Prakash Yeli represented the Appellant while Advocate S.B. Hangarki represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant and respondent got married in 2019 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was alleged that the Respondent-wife left the matrimonial home in June 2019, and the Appellant issued a legal notice calling upon the Respondent-wife to return to the matrimonial home. The husband thereafter invoked Sec.13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking the grant of divorce.
The Respondent-wife filed a counterclaim seeking compensation. The wife specifically pleaded that the Appellant was 15 years older than her and was not performing conjugal rights from the date of marriage. After the wife left the matrimonial home, the husband never made any attempt to bring her back to the matrimonial home. The Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband, refusing to grant divorce. The Family Court also dismissed the wife’s counterclaim. The Appellant-husband thus approached the High Court, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Family Court.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the Appellant had neither produced any certificate about alleged mental disorder or absent-mindedness of the Respondent-wife. Further, the husband had not examined either the treating Doctor or any expert in support of his claim that the Respondent-wife was absent-minded or suffering from mental disorder.
“It is reiterated that mere production and marking of a document during evidence does not establish its contents. The marking of a document as an exhibit proves only that the document was brought on record. In other words, it does not dispense with the requirement of proving its contents. Receiving the document on record as an exhibit does not establish its contents until the parties or experts prove them by oral testimony, as required in the case at hand”, it added.
The Bench further noted that the Respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home and the husband made no effort to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home and to live with him. It was also admitted that the Appellant had not filed any petition before the Court of law seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
The Bench clarified that the husband’s contention that there was an irretrievable breakdown of marriage could not be considered as a ground for grant of divorce, since the same was not found as one of the ingredients in the statute to be a ground for grant of divorce.
Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench upheld the order of the Family Court.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-K:10230-DB)