Fame Doesn't Create Exception: Karnataka High Court Grants Divorce To Actor 'Duniya Vijay', Awards ₹2 Crore Permanent Alimony To Wife

Update: 2026-09-08 14:29 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

story

The Karnataka High Court has granted a decree of divorce to popular Kannada actor 'Duniya Vijay' (B.R. Vijay Kumar) on the ground of cruelty, while awarding Rs 2 crores as permanent alimony to his estranged wife, Nagarathna. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341]“…Fame does not create an exception to a person's conduct but it magnifies its standard. When a man of public influence strays from the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

“…Fame does not create an exception to a person's conduct but it magnifies its standard. When a man of public influence strays from the sanctity of marriage, his fall from grace does not become a cause for adulation. This Judgment is rendered, not in celebration of the husband's conduct but inspite of it, considering the peculiar facts herein. We hope that it serves as a reminder that respect earned on screen cannot compensate for dereliction of matrimonial obligations at home”, the court noted in the order at the outset.

The Division Bench of Justices D.K Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan observed that while the actor's conduct with another woman was 'deplorable', the wife's unsubstantiated allegations of multiple wives amounted to mental cruelty.

The court further noted that repeated and unsubstantiated allegations against the Actor having multiple wives made in the media, even in response to media queries, amount to mental cruelty.

“…The Respondent has stated that the Petitioner has five wives, the fifth one being…. While there is no convincing material on record to prove that the Petitioner has indeed married….., as far as the Respondent's allegations with respect to the other wives are concerned, the Respondent has failed to place any material to show that the Petitioner has indeed entered into a marriage with four other women; as such, these allegations remain unsubstantiated”.

However, the court noted that the conduct of the actor with other women constituted conduct that was far from innocent, by relying on Section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

“…If the husband, by his own conduct, projects a third person as occupying the place of a wife or is otherwise involved intimately with the third person, he cannot thereafter be heard to say that his legally wedded spouse had deserted him without his consent…”, the court added.

After dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty, the court noted that despite the non-filing of financial statements by either side, it may be noted that the petitioner-actor's films are admittedly well received

“….granting a lumpsum amount as permanent alimony ensures finality in the matter and minimises any possibility of future litigation between the parties….Considering the need to secure financial stability of the Respondent and the three children and to put quietus to the long-standing litigation, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of equity, to direct the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the Respondent as a one-time payment”, the court accordingly noted in the order.

The court also noted that the actor's wife had created an 'intolerable environment' for the actor's parents too.

“….No parent takes the drastic step of formally recording their wish to exclude their daughter-in-law from their own funeral... The very fact that the parents considered it necessary to formally record such a wish, therefore, is itself indicative of the extent of the animosity and distress that must have been occasioned to them by the conduct of the Respondent…”, the court opined.

“….A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act”, the court emphasised further.

For context, the actor and the respondent got married in 1999 and have three children together, all of whom have attained majority. After the marriage relationship turned sour, the actor filed a divorce plea under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent wife.

After multiple rounds of litigation and reconciliations, the family court had dismissed the divorce petition on June 13, 2024, leading to the present appeal.