Dismissed¶4

Abhilash T P v. Uma Nagadarshini K Y

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026MFA/7135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abhilash T.P. v. Uma Nagadarshini K.Y., MFA No. 7135 of 2025 (FC), CNR KAHC010628042025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 22 July 2026; bench Justice D K Singh and Justice T.M.Nadaf (judgment per Justice D K Singh). Divorce appeal under Sec.19(1) Family Courts Act, 1984 against Family Court, Tumakuru (MC.No.215/2022) dismissal of Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 petition for cruelty and desertion; antecedent Sec.9 restitution of conjugal rights decree allowed; allegations held superficial without proof; appeal dismissed; sacramental view of Hindu marriage expressed.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no error in the impugned judgment and decree and therefore dismissed the appeal, hoping the parties will live together and build a beautiful life. ¶4

Abhilash T P Vs Uma Nagadarshini K Y — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-husband was entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on grounds of cruelty and desertion, i.e., whether the Family Court rightly dismissed his petition in MC.No.215/2022. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The allegations of cruelty and desertion levelled in the matter were found to be very superficial without any proof.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no error in the impugned judgment and decree and therefore dismissed the appeal, hoping the parties will live together and build a beautiful life.

¶4

Key takeaways

On review, the Family Court was found to have considered all materials brought on record, and the record does not suggest cruelty by the wife to an extent forming a ground for the appellant-husband to seek a decree of divorce.ratio¶4
The Court observed that marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as per the culture and traditions of society, is not a contract that can be broken on trivial grounds at any point of time; it is a sacrament binding the parties for life.obiter¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA (FC) under Sec.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in MC.No.215/2022 dismissing the husband's petition for divorce under Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Division Bench (Justice D K Singh and Justice T.M.Nadaf; judgment per Justice D K Singh) noted the marriage solemnised on 21.02.2019, a daughter born 01.08.2020, and that an earlier Sec.9 HMA petition for restitution of conjugal rights had been allowed with cohabitation subsequently resumed. Held: the allegations of cruelty and desertion were very superficial and without proof; the Family Court had considered all materials on record, which do not support cruelty by the wife to an extent warranting divorce; no error was found in the impugned judgment. Observed (obiter): a Hindu marriage is a sacrament, not a contract breakable on trivial grounds; both spouses being educated professionals (Assistant Professor and Architect), they were urged to rebuild their life and care for the child. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37754-DB MFA No. 7135 of 2025

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010628042025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7135 OF 2025 (FC)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

ABHILASH T.P., S/O T.S. PANCHAKSHARI, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O ADARSHANAGARA, NEAR TUDA OFFICE, TUMAKURU.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY MS. TEJASWINI V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

UMA NAGADARSHINI K.Y., W/O ABHILASH T.P. D/O SHANTHISWAROOP, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT DEVARAYAPPATNA, PRASHANTHNAGAR, TUMKURU.

¶17

…RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT,1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:21.06.2025 PASSED IN MC NO.215/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.13(1)(ia)(ib) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37754-DB MFA No. 7135 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CNR: KAHC010628042025

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶25

The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in MC.No.215/2022 instituted by the appellant-husband seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶26

2. The marriage between the parties was performed on 21.02.2019 in accordance with the Hindu rites, rituals and customs. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 01.08.2020, who is presently about six

¶27

years of age. The allegations of cruelty and desertions are very superficial without any proof. In fact the appellant

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37754-DB MFA No. 7135 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CNR: KAHC010628042025

¶31

had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-wife resumed cohabitation with the appellant. H owever, according to the appellant, she thereafter left the matrimonial home once again.

¶32

3. Marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as per the culture and traditions of the society, is not a kind of contract can be broken on trivial ground at any point of time. The marriage is sacrament, this should bind the parties for life, unless interrupted for supernatural reasons.

¶33

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court. The Family Court has considered all materials brought on record, which would not suggest that the wife has not committed any cruelty to an extent to be a ground to the appellanthusband to seek a decree of divorce. Both parties are well educated inasmuch as the appellant is Assistant Professor

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37754-DB MFA No. 7135 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CNR: KAHC010628042025

¶37

whereas the respondent-wife is an Architect. They should build beautiful life together and take care of their child in

¶38

the best possible manner so that she turn out to be a good citizen.

¶39

We find no error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed , hoping that the parties will live together and build a beautiful life for years to come.

¶40

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶41

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 ct-vn

Abhilash T P v. Uma Nagadarshini K Y

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash T P v. Uma Nagadarshini K Y

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmapala Gowda Vs Smt Pavithra

Smt Keerthika N M Vs Sri Bhushan C

Smt. Priya M U Vs Raghavendra G

Mr. Sudeep Pandey Vs Ms. Sanjana Debata

Sri Y N Arvind Vs Smt. M Nikitha

Smt. Ashwini C Vs Sri B Shivaramakrishnan