The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a decree of divorce granted on the ground of mental cruelty, and permanent alimony granted to his wife by the Family Court. While doing so, the court made a crucial distinction that mere separate living within the same premises, by itself, cannot be treated as cruelty. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318]

“…Standing by itself, such an arrangement [separate rooms] cannot be treated as cruelty. The mere fact that spouses occupy separate rooms, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty. What is relevant is the surrounding circumstances in which such separation took place and the manner in which the matrimonial relationship had otherwise progressed….”, the court observed in the order.

The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan underscored that spouses occupying separate rooms in the same house, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty.

“…One circumstance which assumes significance is that, for a considerable period, the parties, though residing in the same premises, occupied separate rooms and were leading substantially separate lives. The appellant[husband] himself has admitted that the parties were residing separately within the same premises, with the appellant occupying one room and the respondent occupying another room along with one of the children….”, the court added.

However, the court held that when such separation constitutes one of the many parts of a prolonged matrimonial history marked by repeated disputes, the cumulative effect establishes cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

“…In the present case, this circumstance cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a prolonged matrimonial history marked by repeated disputes, allegations of abuse, estrangement, an earlier matrimonial proceeding, an attempt at reconciliation and, ultimately, failure of the relationship…”, the court accordingly concluded.

The court also pointed out that the family court granted divorce in the instant case not on the independent grounds of desertion or irretrievable breakdown of marriage but on cruelty aspect.

“…The fact that the parties lived separately is relevant only as a circumstance bearing upon the nature, continuity and effect of the matrimonial conduct. Likewise, the fact that the matrimonial relationship had, in substance, ceased to function is not being treated as an independent ground for dissolution. It is one of the surrounding circumstances which has been taken into account while assessing the cumulative effect of the conduct established on record…”, the court said.

For context, the appellant- husband had challenged the Bengaluru Family Court's 2025 order whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court had also directed the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs 25,000 per month to the respondent-wife.

The appellant had denied the allegations of cruelty, contending that they were false, exaggerated, and the respondent herself was responsible for the deterioration of the relationship. He also argued that his erstwhile wife was influenced by her family members, and that she had threatened and actually lodged a complaint under Section 498-A.

The Court listed eight circumstances emerging from the evidence on record before upholding divorce.

“….(i) the parties had been involved in repeated and serious matrimonial disputes; (ii) the respondent has consistently spoken about verbal and emotional abuse and neglect; (iii) the parties had, for a considerable period, been living separately even while occupying the same premises; (iv) the appellant has admitted his habits of consuming alcohol, chewing gutka/tobacco and smoking; (v) an earlier matrimonial proceeding had been instituted by the appellant himself; (vi) despite an attempt at reconciliation, the matrimonial relationship again deteriorated; (vii) the parties thereafter lived separately for a prolonged period; and (viii) the matrimonial relationship was not restored despite opportunities for reconciliation…”

Hence, the court concluded that a spouse cannot be expected to endure, for an indefinite period, conduct which causes continuous mental pai, and destroys the basic elements of companionship and matrimonial security.

“…The cumulative effect of these circumstances is sufficient to establish mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act…”, the court said.

Moreover, the Court found that the Family Court had properly considered the respective incomes, circumstances, and the educational and medical requirements of the children, and the award of Rs 25,000 per month could not be said to be excessive or arbitrary.

Accordingly, the decree dissolving marriage between appellant-husband and respondent wife was confirmed by the court, along with the quantum of permanent alimony granted.

Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8362/2025(FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318

Click Here To Read/Download Order