Synopsis

The husband filed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court granted the decree, primarily accepting the husband’s uncorroborated testimony that the wife made false allegations (including that he had HIV/AIDS) and used abusive language. The wife appealed. The High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, holding that: (i) serious allegations of cruelty require at least some corroborative evidence; (ii) the Family Court applied differential evidentiary standards (accepting husband’s bare word while rejecting wife’s similar allegations for lack of proof); (iii) the issue of desertion is intertwined with the wife’s defence that the husband was living with another woman – this requires proper evidentiary inquiry, especially in light of additional documents (school admission abstract and photographs) sought to be produced at the appellate stage.

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 28th April 2026

Citation: MFA No. 200082 of 2017 (NC:2026:KHC-K:3775-DB)

Core Law: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) (cruelty), Section 13(1)(ib) (desertion); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 (additional evidence)

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of karnataka at kalaburagi

Miscellaneous first appeal no. 200082 of 2017 (fc)

Sudha w/o rajsakar (appellant) vs. Rajsakar s/o bakappa nelli (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice suraj govindaraj and hon’ble dr. justice chillakur sumalatha (division bench)

Date: 28th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Hindu marriage act, 1955 – section 13(1)(ia) (divorce on ground of cruelty), section 13(1)(ib) (divorce on ground of desertion), section 28 (appeal)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order xli rule 27 (additional evidence in appeal), section 151 (inherent powers)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a decree of divorce based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the husband alleging cruelty can be sustained; and whether the Family Court properly considered the wife’s defence that her separate residence was justified by the husband’s alleged extra‑marital relationship, before recording a finding of desertion.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.