Recently a man from Mysuru, Karnataka, India openly admitted in court that after 21 years of being married to his wife, he has lost interest in their marriage. He believes that, for all intents and purposes, the marriage is over and is asking the court for a divorce.

However, the Karnataka High Court refused to grant him divorce by holding that a spouse cannot deliberately avoid resuming marital life after an Restitution of Conjugal Rights decree has been issued as this means he is taking advantage of his own actions.

Hon'ble Justice D K Singh and Hon'ble Justice T.M. Nadaf of the Karnataka High Court observed that under Hindu law, marriage is regarded as a sacrament and it is not a contract, and thus once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party.

The Karnataka High Court also said: "The appellant (husband) wants to take advantage of his own wrong. The person who fell in love with the respondent and fathered a girl child who is now almost a major, has come before the Court stating that he is left with no interest in the marriage and…"

Also read: Marriage registration alone isn't enough: Gujarat HC says Hindu marriage is invalid without Saptapadi

Keep reading to know the exact details of the case (NC: 2026:KHC:36045-DB, dated July 15, 2026) and what led to this judgement.

Both the parties were residents of Mysuru, Karnataka and fell in love with each other. But, she was of Brahmin caste and he was not. They chose to marry anyway, making it an inter-caste love marriage .

The marriage lasted 21 years and they had a daughter who is now an adult. After two decades together, he decided to file a case (M.C.No.381/2019) seeking to dissolve the marriage based on the reasons outlined in the Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

According to him, neither of them made any effort to revive their conjugal life, and they have been living separately in Mysuru. He claimed that despite his sincere efforts and multiple requests for her to join him and continue their marital life, she neither responded nor joined him. Therefore, he believed that their marriage had broken down irretrievably.

On the other hand, she argued that she took care of him and his parents, providing them with love and affection. She informed the court that his parents advised them to stay on the first floor of their house for prayer and cooking purposes due to her Brahmin background.

Following his parents' advice, they lived on the first floor of the house, but she never insisted on a separate residence. She also denied the allegation of incompatibility between them and said that she never picked up any quarrel with him or his family members even for a single day. The other allegations were also denied.

The family court after hearing them both, ruled that the allegation of cruelty as provided under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act against her could not be proved. In fact, when he was cross-examined, he clearly admitted that he had not resumed his marital life with her as he had no interest in resuming his marital life with her.

His advocate also said that he had no interest in this marriage at all and thus filed an appeal in Karnataka High Court for divorce.

Also read: ‘Ardhangini’ has legal significance too: Andhra Pradesh HC permits wife to access ailing husband’s bank account

The Karnataka High Court said he wanted to take advantage of his own wrong. The person who fell in love with her and fathered a girl child who is now almost a major, has come before the high court stating that he is left with no interest in the marriage and therefore, a decree of divorce should be granted.

Karnataka High Court said: "The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party."

Thus the high court said that they found no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court and therefore, dismissed the husband's appeal.