DIVORCE

UNDER

THEHINDUMARRIAGEACT,1955

IN
FAMILYLAWI

SUBMITTEDTO
MR.A.P.SINGH

SUBMITTEDBY
ANOOPKUMAR(ROLLNO.11)

Divorceisthepsychologicalequivalentofatriplecoronarybypass.Aftersuchamonumentalassaulton
theheart,ittakesyearstoamendallthehabitsandattitudesthatleduptoit.
MaryKayBlakely

DR.RAMMANOHARLOHIYANATIONAL
LAWUNIVERSITY
LUCKNOW

PREFACE
Theaimoftheprojectistomakethereaderawareoftheprovisionsof
divorceundertheHinduMarriageAct,1955.
ThanksareduetothefacultyofFamilyLawofDr.RamManohar
LohiyaNationalLawUniversity.Theprojectcouldnothaveseenlightin
theabsenceofthecooperationofthelibraryoftheUniversity.
Aboveall,I wouldbethankfultomyparentswhoseblessingshave
helpedmeduringtheproblemsariseninthepreparationoftheproject.

21stApr.2008
ANOOPKUMAR

INDEX

INTRODUCTION
THEORIESREGARDINGDIVORCE
GROUNDSFORDIVORCE
DIVORCEBYMUTUALCONSENT
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION:
UndertheHinduMarriageAct,1955boththehusbandandthewifehavebeengivena
righttogettheirmarriagedissolvedbyadecreeofdivorceonmorethanonegrounds
specifically enumerated in Section 13. Some of the grounds initially inserted were
substitutedandsomemoregroundscametobeadded.Itwasintheyear1964thatsub
section(1A)wasinsertedbywhicheitherpartytothemarriagewasalsogivenarightto
applyfordissolutionofmarriagebyadecreeofdivorceeitherwheretherehasbeenno
resumptionofcohabitationfortheperiodspecifiedtherein,afterthepassingofthedecree
forjudicialseparation;orwheretherehasbeennorestitutionofconjugalrightsforthe
periodspecifiedtherein,afterthepassingofthedecreeforjudicialseparation;orwhere
therehasbeennorestitutionofconjugalrightsfortheperiodspecifiedthereinafterthe
passingofadecreeforrestitutionofconjugalrights.

THEORIESREGARDINGDIVORCE
TheprovisionsrelatingtodivorceiscontainedinSec13ofHinduMarriageAct,1955.
The Actrecognizestwotheoriesof Divorce: the fault theoryand divorcebymutual
consent.Underthefaulttheory,marriagecanbedissolvedonlywheneitherpartytothe
marriagehadcommittedamatrimonialoffence.Underthistheoryitisnecessarytohave
aguiltyandaninnocentpartyandonlyinnocentpartycanseektheremedyofdivorce.
Howeverthemoststrikingfeatureanddrawbackisthatifbothpartieshavebeenatfault,
thereisnoremedyavailable.

Anothertheoryofdivorceisthatofmutualconsent.Theunderlyingrationaleisthatsince
twopersonscanmarrybytheirfreewill,theyshouldalsobeallowedtomoveoutoftheir
relationshipoftheirownfreewill.Howevercriticsofthistheorysaythatthisapproach
willpromoteimmoralityasitwillleadtohastydivorcesandpartieswoulddissolvetheir
marriageeveniftherewereslightincompatibilityoftemperament.

SomeofthegroundsavailableunderHinduMarriageActcanbesaidtobeunderthe
theory offrustrationbyreasonof specifiedcircumstances.Theseincludecivildeath,
renouncementoftheworldetc.Inthisarticleweshallseethathowthesetheories,owing
to change in social circumstances and change in attitude towards the institution of
marriagehadfailedtoprovidefulljusticeinmatrimonialcases.

GROUNDSOFDIVORCE
TheActoriginallyrecognisedthefaultgroundsforobtainingthedecreeofdivorce.For
thispurposeninefaultgroundswerementionedintheAct.Sec.13(1)laysdownthese
fault grounds,onwhicheitherthehusbandorwifecouldsuefordivorce.Twofault
groundshavebeendealtwithinthesec.13(2),onwhichwifealone,couldseekthe
decree of divorce. In 1976, the grounds for divorce by mutual consent have been
recognisedthroughtheprovisionofthesec.13B.
Sec.13oftheHinduMarriageAct,1955says:
13.Divorce(1)Anymarriagesolemnized,whetherbeforeorafterthecommencementoftheAct,
may,onapetitionpresentedbyeitherthehusbandorthewife,bedissolvedbyadecreeofdivorce
onthegroundthattheotherparty
(i)has,afterthesolemnizationofthemarriagehadvoluntarysexualintercoursewithanyperson
otherthanhisorherspouse;or
(ia)has,afterthesolemnizationofthemarriage,treatedthepetitionerwithcruelty;or
(ib)hasdesertedthepetitionerforacontinuousperiodofnotlessthantwoyearsimmediately
precedingthepresentationofthepetition;or
(ii)hasceasedtobeaHindubyconversiontoanotherreligion;or
(iii)hasbeenincurablyofunsoundmind,orhassufferingcontinuouslyorintermittentlyfrom
mentaldisorderofsuchakindandtosuchanextentthatthepetitionercannotreasonablybe
expectedtolivewiththerespondent.
ExplanationInthisclause
(a)theexpression"mentaldisorder"meansmentalillness,arrestedorincompletedevelopmentof
mind,psychopathicdisorderoranyotherdisorderordisabilityofmindandincludeschizophrenia;

(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind
(whetherornotincludingsubnormalityofintelligence)whichresultsinabnormallyaggressiveor
seriouslyirresponsibleconductonthepartoftheotherpartyandwhetherornotitrequiresoris
susceptibletomedicaltreatment;or
(iv)hasbeensufferingfromavirulentandincurableformofleprosy;or
(v)hasbeensufferingfromveneraldiseaseinacommunicableform;or
(vi)hasrenouncedtheworldbyenteringanyreligiousorder;or
(vii)hasnotbeenheardofasbeingaliveforaperiodofsevenyearsormorebythosepersonswho
wouldnaturallyhaveheardofit,hadthatpartybeenalive;
Explanation.Inthissubsection,theexpression"desertion"meansthedesertionofthepetitioner
bytheotherpartytothemarriagewithoutreasonablecauseandwithouttheconsentoragainstthe
wishofsuchparty,andincludesthewillfulneglectofthepetitionerbytheotherpartytothe
marriage,anditsgrammaticalvariationsandcognateexpressionshallbeconstruedaccordingly.
(1A)Eitherpartytoamarriage,whethersolemnizedbeforeorafterthecommencementofthis
Act,mayalsopresentapetitionforthedissolutionofthemarriagebyadecreeofdivorceonthe
ground
(i)thattherehasbeennoresumptionofcohabitationasbetweenthepartiestothemarriagefora
periodofoneyearorupwardsafterthepassingofadecreeforjudicialseparationinaproceeding
towhichtheywereparties;or
(ii)thattherehasbeennorestitutionofconjugalrightsasbetweenthepartiestothemarriagefora
periodofoneyearorupwardafterthepassingofadecreeofrestitutionofconjugalrightsina
proceedingtowhichtheywereparties.
(2)Awifemayalsopresentapetitionforthedissolutionofhermarriagebyadecreeofdivorceon
theground

(i)inthecaseofanymarriagesolemnizedbeforethecommencementofthisAct,thatthehusband
hadmarriedagainbeforethecommencementorthatanyotherwifeofthehusbandmarriedbefore
suchcommencementwasaliveatthetimeofthesolemnizationofthemarriageofthepetitioner:
Providedthatineithercasetheotherwifeisaliveatthetimeofthepresentationofthepetition;
(ii)thatthehusbandhas,sincethesolemnizationofthemarriage,beenguiltyofrape,sodomyor
bestiality;or
(iii)thatinasuitunderSection18oftheHinduAdoptionsandMaintenanceAct,(78of1956),or
inaproceedingunderSection125oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,(Act2of1974)or
undercorrespondingSection488oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,(5of1898),adecreeor
order,asthecasemaybe,hasbeenpassedagainstthehusbandawardingmaintenancetothewife
notwithstandingthatshewasliving apartandthat sincethepassingofsuchdecree ororder,
cohabitationbetweenthepartieshasnotbeenresumedforoneyearorupwards;or
(iv)thathermarriage(whetherconsummatedornot)wassolemnizedbeforesheattainedtheage
offifteenyearsandshehasrepudiatedthemarriageafterattainingthatagebutbeforeattainingthe
ageofeighteenyears.
Explanation. This clause applies whether the marriage was solemnized before or after the
commencementoftheMarriageLaw(Amendment)Act,1976.

Adecreeofdivorcecanalsobeobtainedthroughthemutualconsent.Theprovisionfor
thesameisgivenintheSec.13BoftheAct.
13B. Divorce by mutual consent.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for
dissolutionofmarriagebyadecreeofdivorcemaybepresentedtotheDistrictCourtbyboththe
parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the
commencementoftheMarriageLaws(Amendment)Act,1976,onthegroundthattheyhavebeen
livingseparatelyforaperiodofoneyearormore,thattheyhavenotbeenabletolivetogetherand
thattheyhavemutuallyagreedthatthemarriageshouldbedissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made earlier than six months after the date of the
presentationofthepetitionreferredtoinsubsection(1)andnotlaterthaneighteenmonthsafter
thesaiddate,ifthepetitionisnotwithdrawninthemeantime,theCourtshall,onbeingsatisfied,
afterhearingthepartiesandaftermakingsuchinquiryasitthinksfit,thatamarriagehasbeen
solemnizedandthattheavermentsinthepetitionaretrue,passadecreeofdivorcedeclaringthe
marriagetobedissolvedwitheffectfromthedateofthedecree.

UndertheHinduMarriageAct,apartymayfileapetitionfordivorceandthemarriage
maybedissolvedbyadecreeofdivorceonthefollowinggrounds:
1. ADULTERY:i.e.voluntarysexualintercoursewithanypersonotherthanhis/her
spouse.Thoughinitiallyadivorcecouldbegrantedonlyifsuchspousewasliving
inadultery,bytheMarriageLawsAmendmentAct,1976,evenasinglevoluntary
sexualact,withanyotherpersonotherthanthespouseisasufficientgroundfor
divorce.ButthepresentpositionundertheHinduMarriageActisthatitconsiders
eventhesingleactofadulteryenoughforthedecreeofdivorce1.Theintercourse
withthewivesofpreActpolygamousmarriagewillnotamounttoadultery.To
establishthisgroundinthecourt,circumstantialevidencewillsuffice2.Undersec.
497oftheIndianPenalCode,theadulteryhasbeenmadeanoffence.Inboththe
criminallawaswellasthematrimoniallaw,itisessentialthatatthetimeof
offence a valid marriage was subsisting. There should be consent of the
respondenttoconstitutethegroundofadultery.Theburdenofproofisonthe
petitioner.
2. CRUELTY:Initiallycrueltywasagroundonlyforjudicialseparation,butnow
formsagroundfordivorceundertheAmendmentActof1976.Theconceptof
crueltyhaschangedfromtimetotimeandfromsocietytosociety.Intheearly
ViraReddyv.Kistamma,1969Mad.235;Subbarmav.Saraswathi,(1966)2MLJ263.
Sanjuktav.Laxmi,1991Ori.39.

1
2

English law, the intention was needed to prove the element of cruelty. But
subsequently,itwasomittedtoberegardedasthegroundforcruelty.Underthe
HinduMarriageActalso,intensionhasnotbeenregardedastheingredientof
cruelty.Thereisnoprecisedefinitionofcruelty.Theactsorconductsconstituting
cruelty be so numerous that it is impossible to fit them into any watertight
compartment.InBhagwatv.Bhagwat3,theconductofthehusbandtostrangulate
thewifesyoungerbrotherandheryoungersonhasbeenrecognizedasanactof
cruelty.InA.JayaChandrav.AneelKaur4,theSupremeCourthasheldthatthe
crueltyshouldbeinreferencetothehumanconductorbehaviour.Theconduct
shouldbeofsuchnaturethatitcanbeconcludedthatthepetitionerspousecannot
beexpectedtolivewiththeotherspouse.IntheIndianlaw,liketheEnglishlaw,
ithasbeenheldthatthecrueltymustbepointedtowardsthepetitioner.Ithasalso
beenheldthatifthewifeisbeingilltreatedbythemembersofthefamilyinfront
ofthehusbandandhelooksidly,itamountstobethewillfulneglect,andthus
amountstocruelty5.Bothmentalcrueltyaswellasthementalcrueltyhasbeen
recognizedasthegrounderundertheAct.Theactsofphysicalviolence,injuryto
thelimborthehealthofthespouse,bytheotherspouseandevenapprehensionof
thesameamountstothecruelty6.Inthecasesofmentalcruelty,courthastoback
intensity,gravityandstigmaticimpactofcrueltreatment,evenifsuchcruel
treatmentismetedoutonce7.Whilearrivingatsuchconclusion,regardmustbe
hadtothesocialstatuseducationalleveloftheparties,thesocietytheymovein,
thepossibilityorotherwiseofthepartiesneverlivingtogetherincasetheyare
1976Bom.18;NeetuKoeenv.NaveenKohli,AIR2004All1.
2005SC534.
5
Sunderv.Shantadevi,1962Ori60.
6
Kausalyav.Wisakhiram1961Punj520;Sayalv.Sarla1961Punj125;Saptmiv.Jagdish(1969)87CWN
520.
7
VijayKumarRamChandraBhatev.NeelaBhate,AIR2003,SC2642.
3
4

livingapartandallotherrelevantfactsandcircumstances,whichitisneither
possible or desirable to set out exhaustively. In Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet
Mehta8,thecourtdefinedhasdefinedmentalcrueltyasthestateofmind.
3. DESERTION:ThishasbeenaddedasagroundfordivorcebytheAmendment
Act,thoughpreviouslyitwasagroundforjudicialseparation.Itincludesthe
desertionofthepetitionerbytheotherspouse,withoutanyreasonablecauseand
withouttheconsentofthatotherspouse.Withoutpreviouscohabitation,therecan
notbeanydesertion9.Itisnotmerelythewithdrawalfromaplacebutalso,from
thestateofthings.UndertheHinduMarriageAct,desertionfallunderfollowing
heads:

Actualdesertion

Constructivedesertionand

Willfulneglect

4. CONVERSION:Inordertoobtainadivorceonthisgrounditshouldbeproved
thatsuchotherpartyhasconverted.Mereprofessingortheoreticalallegianceto
anyotherreligiondoesnotmeanconversion.Thisgroundhasbeenaddedtothe
act for obtaining divorce, as according to the Hindu Law, a marriage is not
dissolvedbyconversionbyoneoftheparties.Thereforecontrarytothebeliefthat
conversionbyitselfresultedindivorce,apersonnowhastoobtainadecreeof
divorceundertheAct.
5. UNSOUNDNESSOFMIND:Initiallyitwasessentialforapartytoprovethat
his/herspousewasincurablyofunsoundmindforacontinuousperiodofthree
years.Howevernowthisdurationhasbeenomitted.Inordertoobtainadecree
2002SC2582.
SavitriPandeyv.PremchandPandey,2002SC591.

8
9

underthisgroundithastobeprovedthatthespouseisaffectedtosuchanextent
thatthepartyseekingdivorcecannotbereasonablyexpectedtolivewithhim/her.
Aftertheamendmentof1976(MarriageLawsAmendmentAct)thegroundof
crueltywas notonlyacceptedbutalsoexplainedintheAct.Itconsiderstwo
distinct mental elements namely: (1) unsoundness of mind and (2) mental
disorder.
6. VIRULENTANDINCURABLELEPROSY.Theamendmentactof1976lays
downthattheleprosymustbebothvirulentandincurable10.
7. VENEREALDISEASESINCOMMUNICABLEFORM. Atpresent,itisa
groundfordivorceifitiscommunicablebymatureirrespectiveoftheperiodfor
whichtherespondenthassufferedfromit.
8. ENTERING NEW RELIGIOUS ORDER: by renouncing the world. This
requires the performance of certain ceremonies and the observance of certain
formalities.Thepetitionerhastoprovethattheotherspousehasceasedtobea
Hindu.Theconversiondoesnotautomaticallydissolvethemarriage.Itprovidesa
groundfordivorce11.
9. PRESUMPTIONOFDEATH:UndertheAct,apersonispresumedtobedead,
ifhe/shehasnotbeenheardofasbeingaliveforaperiodofatleastsevenyears.
ThedecreeobtainedundertheHinduMarriageActwouldnotbeadecreeof
deathofthemissingspouse,itwouldbeonlyofthepresumptionofdeath,under
sec.8oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872.

SwarajyaLakshmiv.PadmaRao,AIR1974SC165.
LilyThomasv.UnionofIndia,andothrs.,AIR2000SC1650.

10
11

DIVORCEBYMUTUALCONSENT: whenthehusbandandwifebothagreethat
theirmarriagecannotsucceed,theymaydecidetogetadivorcebymutualconsent.Itis
notnecessarytogiveanyreasontothecourtforsuchadivorce.Theymustfileadivorce
petitionintheDistrictcourt.Howeverthefollowingshouldbeconsidered:
Boththehusbandandwifearelivingseparatelyfromlast1year.
Bothofthemhadagreedthattheycantstaytogether.
Noneofthemhasbeenforcedtogivetheapplication.
Thecourtwillnottakeanyactionontheapplicationfor6monthssothatthehusbandand
wife can reconsider their decision. After a period of 6 months from the date of
presentationofthepetitionandnotlaterthan18months,ifthepetitionisnotwithdrawn,
thecourtwillgrantthedecreeofdivorce.Thecourtmusthoweverbesatisfiedaboutthe
bonafidesandconsentoftheparties.Ifoneofthepartieswithdrawstheconsent,thecourt
makesaninquiryinthisregardandifthereisnoconsentatthetimeoftheenquiry,it
cannotpassthedecreeofdivorce

CONCLUSION
TheHindusconsidermarriagetobeasacredbond.PriortotheHinduMarriageActof
1955,therewasnoprovisionfordivorce.Theconceptofgettingdivorcedwastooradical
fortheIndiansocietythen.Thewiveswerethesilentvictimsofsucharigidsystem.Now
thelawprovidesforawaytogetoutofanunpleasantmarriagebyseekingdivorceina
courtoflaw.Theactualbenefactorsofsuchaprovisionarewomenwhonolongerhave
tosilentlyenduretheharassmentorinjusticecausedtothembytheirhusbands.
However,topreventhastydivorces,thelawlaysdowncertainrestrictionsand
groundsforobtainingadivorce.Beforeobtainingdivorce,thepartiesmayfirstobtaina
decreeforjudicialseparationafterwhichdivorcemaybeobtained.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DesaiS.A.,MullaHinduLaw,19thedition(2005),Vol2LexisNexis,NewDelhi,

DiwanParas,Dr.ParasdiwanonHinduLaw,2ndedition(2002)OrientPublishing
Company,NewDelhi,

Kusum,familyLawLecturesFamilyLawI,2ndedition(2007)LexisNexis,New
Delhi,

Mayne,HinduLaw&Usage,15thedition(2003)BharatLawHouse,NewDelhi,