Karnataka High Court says marriage sacred, eternal union, not a civil contract, denies divorce to woman

“In the presence of sacred fire (Agni Sakshi), the bride and bridegroom clasp each other’s hands and solemnly vow to uphold the fourfold purposes of life – Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha by reciting the sacred pledge, ‘Dharmecha, Arthecha, Kamecha, Mokshecha,’” the court said.

A division bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Umesh M Adiga said under Hindu Law, marriage is revered as a sacred, eternal union, not a civil contract.

The court further said that they signify their commitment to walk together in righteousness, prosperity, love, and spiritual liberation. Thus, the ceremony symbolises not just a social union, but a divine partnership ordained by destiny.

“It appears that the petitioner thought that marriage is child’s play. It appears she had made allegations just to go to her parents’ house to pursue her education,” the court said.

Case

The court was hearing the plea of a woman against the Family Court order, where she was denied divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

“The couple married in 2012, according to the Hindu customs and rituals. She stayed for 21 days in her husband’s house,” the order reads.

The woman submitted before the Family Court that she and her parents were harassed by the husband and his family members for the sake of additional dowry and subjected to cruelty.

She has further stated that she is not economically sound, and her husband is earning an income of Rs 30,000 per month from his employment. With these reasons, she prayed for the relief of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and also prayed to award permanent alimony.

Decision

The court held that, as per the Hindu Marriage Act, unless it is established by the petitioner that she has been subjected to unbearable cruelty at the hands of her husband and members of his family, she cannot seek the relief of divorce.

The court ruled that the Judge of the Family Court had discussed in detail the evidence given by both parties and came to the right conclusion. It does not call for any interference by this Court.