Hindu marriage is not a contract; husband can't seek divorce saying he has lost interest in wife: Karnataka HC

A person cannot walk away from a marriage and seek divorce merely on the ground that he has lost interest in his spouse, the Karnataka High Court recently held.

A Division Bench of Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf underscored that marriage under the Hindu law is a sacrament and it is not a contract and hence, once the parties are married, it is for life.

"The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party," the Bench ruled.

The Court made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal seeking divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court was hearing an appeal under the Family Courts Act, 1984, against a judgment of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, which had dismissed the husband's divorce petition.

By way of background, the parties married on December 15, 2003, in what the Court noted was both a love marriage and an inter-caste marriage, and have a daughter who is now almost a major. The present petition came after roughly two decades of marriage, and after an earlier round of litigation in 2019.

The husband had then sought divorce, while the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9.

The two petitions were clubbed and decided by a common judgment in which the family court allowed the wife's restitution plea and dismissing the husband's divorce plea.

The husband subsequently filed a petition under Section 13(1A), contending that despite the restitution decree, the parties had not resumed cohabitation, his efforts to persuade the wife to join him had failed, and the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

The wife denied any cruelty or incompatibility, stating that she had looked after the husband and his parents and never insisted on a separate residence. She explained the couple had lived on the first floor of the family house on the in-laws' advice, tied to religious practices linked to her Brahmin background, and denied ever quarrelling with the appellant or his family.

The family court held that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) was not made out against the wife. Significantly, the husband admitted in cross-examination that he had not resumed marital life simply because he was not interested in doing so.

Hence, the husband's plea was dismissed.

This led to the plea before the High Court.

The counsel for the husband argued that the husband had no interest in continuing the marital relationship, that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes, and that a decree of divorce ought to be granted.

The High Court observed that the husband was attempting to take advantage of his own wrong having married for love, fathered a daughter now nearly an adult, and then approached the Court merely stating he had lost interest in the marriage.

The Court reiterated that marriage under Hindu law is a sacrament, not a contract, and that a party cannot walk away from it citing lack of interest.

Hence, it found no reason to interfere with the family court's judgment, the and dismissed the appeal.

Advocate Belle R represented the husband.