Karnataka HC settles Duniya Vijay’s divorce with Rs 2 crore alimony

BENGALURU: Fame does not create an exception to a person’s conduct, but it magnifies its standard, the Karnataka High Court observed while dissolving the marriage between actor BR Vijay Kumar, popularly known as Duniya Vijay, and Nagarathna by a decree of divorce with effect from the date of the decree.

Since Vijay has transferred the dwelling house to Nagarathna, where she is presently residing, and considering his financial capabilities and the need to secure the financial stability of his wife and three children, the court directed him to pay Rs 2 crore to her as a one-time alimony payment within three months. If he fails to do so, he is required to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum effective from the date of decree till the date when the payment is done.

With this, a division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan closed the long-standing litigation between Vijay and Nagarathna, currently 46 years and 40 years old, respectively. They had tied the knot at Haro Gadde in Anekal taluk of Bengaluru Rural district on August 29, 1999.

“When a man of public influence strays from the sanctity of marriage, his fall from grace does not become a cause for adulation. This judgement is rendered, not in celebration of the husband’s conduct but in spite 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 observed.

Vijay moved the High Court, challenging the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court in the city on June 13, 2024, dismissing his petition under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce.

Allowing the appeal, the court said, “While neither of the parties has filed their respective financial statements for fixing the permanent alimony payable, we have noticed that Vijay is a film actor, whose films are admittedly being well received. Although the three children of the parties have admittedly attained majority, we have considered the need to secure the general well-being and educational needs of the children, including their future marriage expenses. The children must not be allowed to suffer due to the protracted litigation between their parents.”