Voluntary Abandonment of Infant Child Constitutes Cruelty; Father Retains Custody: Karnataka High Court

“The respondent abandoned the child at a time when her love, care, and affection were most necessary... The conduct of the respondent, therefore, does not appear to be bona fide”— In a seminal ruling High Court of Karnataka, comprising Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice K. V. Aravind, dismissed the appeals filed by a wife, thereby upholding the decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion, and confirming the custody of the minor daughter with the father.

The genesis of the dispute lies in the marriage solemnized on November 14, 2011. The husband, a software engineer, and the wife, an Assistant Professor, resided in Bengaluru. The couple was blessed with a daughter in 2012. However, the matrimonial home was soon marred by discord. The husband alleged that the wife exhibited a dominating nature, frequently abused him and his aged parents using derogatory terms like ‘pisachigalu’ (ghosts), ‘idiot’, and ‘rascal’, and refused to perform household chores.

The situation escalated with allegations of physical assault in public places. The husband contended that the wife showed a distinct lack of affection towards their infant daughter, often leaving the child in unhygienic conditions. The flashpoint occurred in April 2014, when the wife allegedly left the matrimonial home. Crucially, during conciliation proceedings before the ‘Santhvana Women Helpline Centre’ in August 2014, the wife executed a written statement (Ex.P6) voluntarily relinquishing the custody of the two-year-old child to the father, expressing her unwillingness to continue the marital life.

“The allegations made by the petitioner against his wife were not ordinary but grave and weighty.”

Cruelty and Desertion Established

The Family Court had previously dissolved the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) (Cruelty) and Section 13(1)(i-b) (Desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the appeal, the High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence. The Bench noted that the wife had filed multiple complaints against the husband and his parents before various forums, including the State Women’s Commission. However, in every instance, she expressed a firm refusal to reconcile.

The Court observed that the wife had been living separately since April 30, 2014, satisfying the statutory period for desertion. The Bench highlighted that despite her claims of wanting to rejoin the husband, she never filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Section 9, HMA). Her conduct of filing frivolous complaints and creating scenes at the husband's parental home was held to constitute mental cruelty.

“It is established that since 30.04.2014, the petitioner and the respondent have been residing separately, and that it was the respondent who deserted the petitioner by leaving the matrimonial home.”

Custody Battle: Welfare of the Child

A significant portion of the judgment addressed the custody of the minor daughter, now approximately 13 years old. The wife challenged the Family Court's rejection of her custody petition filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. The High Court took a stern view of the wife's conduct in 2014, noting that she had abandoned the child when she was merely two years old.

The Court found that the child had been continuously cared for by the father and paternal grandparents for over a decade. The Bench remarked that the wife only filed for custody in 2019—five years after leaving the child—as a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings. Finding no evidence that the father or grandparents were unfit, the Court held that disrupting the child's established environment would not be in her best interest.

“The respondent abandoned the child at a time when her love, care, and affection were most necessary... It is apparent that the respondent never made any genuine attempt to resume matrimonial life.”

Permanent Alimony and Maintenance

The Court also adjudicated the cross-appeal regarding maintenance. The husband, earning approximately Rs. 2.14 Lakhs per month, challenged the award of Rs. 20,000 per month as permanent alimony. The wife, an M.Tech holder earning Rs. 38,200 per month, sought enhancement.

The Bench struck a balance, noting that while the husband had a higher income, he solely bore the responsibility of the minor child and his aged parents. Conversely, the wife had no dependents. Consequently, the Court found the quantum of Rs. 20,000 per month to be reasonable and proportionate, declining to interfere with the Family Court's financial arrangement.

The High Court dismissed all three appeals (MFA No. 645/2024, MFA No. 546/2024, and MFA No. 1681/2024). The decree of divorce was affirmed, the custody of the minor child remained with the father, and the order of permanent alimony was sustained.

Date of Decision: 19/12/2025