‘He needed a maid, not a wife’: Karnataka High Court rejects husband’s divorce plea

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a man's divorce appeal, citing trivial issues that could have been resolved through compromise.

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a man’s appeal seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, stating that the issues he raised were trivial and could have been resolved through dialogue.

A division bench comprising Justices Jayant Banerji and Umesh Adiga said this in a September 15 order recently made public. (Picture credit: Freepik)

The bench also observed that the petitioner seemed more in need of “an obedient and sincere maid” than a life partner.

A division bench comprising Justices Jayant Banerji and Umesh Adiga, in a September 15 order recently made public, highlighted that “Marriage is not a child’s play, India Express reported.

In matrimonial life, both husband and wife have to compromise and adjust with each other to lead a normal marital life.”

The appeal challenged a 2020 family court ruling in Bengaluru, which had dismissed his divorce petition after concluding that the woman had successfully demonstrated that he and his mother were unhappy because they did not receive sufficient dowry or property from her, the report further added.

The couple had married in 2015 but lived together for only ten days. Shortly after, the wife moved to Singapore for work, while the husband remained employed in the United States. Despite his attempts, he could not convince her to relocate, prompting him to file for divorce before the family court in 2016.

During the high court proceedings, the woman explained that her inability to join her husband in the US was due to his mother’s interference. She noted that he had not made any visa arrangements to facilitate her move, and his mother had encouraged her not to resign from her job in Singapore but to seek a transfer instead. The court pointed out that the petitioner admitted in cross-examination that he had taken no steps to obtain a visa for his wife.

Upholding the family court decision, the bench remarked, “It is evident that the petitioner was in need of an obedient and sincere maid rather than a wife. He appears to be expecting too much from his life partner, expecting her to act according to his whims and fancies.” The court added that “even a plain reading of the petition reveals that the petitioner raised trivial issues, which could have been resolved through mutual discussion and understanding.”