Bengaluru Software Engineer Wins Divorce Case After Exposing Wife’s Secret Marriage
Bengaluru, 15th May 2025: A software engineer from Bengaluru succeeded in dissolving his marriage after he personally uncovered evidence that his wife had concealed a previous marriage. The Mangaluru family court not only granted him a divorce but also awarded ₹30,000 in litigation expenses, marking the end of a four-year-long legal battle.
The man, identified as Abhay (name changed), married Sunitha (name changed), a woman from Dakshina Kannada, on December 31, 2018. At the time, Abhay was earning around ₹2 lakh a month and living in Bengaluru. The couple initially began their married life together in the city, but trouble surfaced within months.
The situation took a dramatic turn in 2021 when Abhay noticed irregular financial transactions between his wife and a man she once dated. Despite Sunitha’s claim that the past relationship had ended months before their wedding, Abhay suspected otherwise.
“She would frequently mention him and even compare me to him,” Abhay stated in court documents. “I had this gnawing feeling that something was being hidden from me.”
Fuelled by doubts, Abhay devised a plan to uncover the truth. He posed as a potential employer and arranged a fake Zoom job interview, recording the interaction. During the conversation, Sunitha inadvertently admitted that she had been married before and was currently with someone else.
Based on this recording and supporting evidence, Abhay approached the family court in Mangaluru, seeking a divorce. The court reviewed the documents, heard arguments from both sides, and on April 23 this year, ruled in Abhay’s favor.
Importantly, Sunitha’s demand for ₹3 crore in alimony and ₹60,000 monthly maintenance was dismissed. The court cited lack of credibility and concealment of facts as key reasons for denying her claims.
Abhay’s lawyer called the ruling a “just outcome.” Speaking after the verdict, he said, “This case highlights the importance of transparency and truth in a marriage. The court recognized the betrayal and responded appropriately.”
