Hindu Divorce Lawyers in Bangalore

As stated by Dennings L J in Moor v Moor, ‘It is important that the Court should emphasize the sanctity of marriage’, keeping this in mind when a petition for divorce is filed before it, the court reasons out the need for divorce. This reasoning is based on set grounds in the statute of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The spouse (either husband or wife) initiating the process files a complaint  giving reasons seeking divorce in accordance with the law while the other party on receiving the summons may contest such a case either opposing stated grounds or opposing the divorce or also may seek divorce stating some other grounds.

a)     Adultery [S 13 (1)(i)]

A consensual sexual intercourse between two persons who are not married to each other but of whom one at least is married to another person is adultery. It is one of the principal grounds for matrimonial relief. One act of adultery is enough to constitute a matrimonial offense, hence ground to seek divorce. The act of voluntary sexual intercourse must have occurred after marriage; any act of sexual intercourse whether voluntary or involuntary, before marriage, is irrelevant under this section. Even though an act of adultery is decriminalized in the Criminal Law, it still remains as a ground to pray for dissolution of marriage by the spouse of the adulterer.

b)     Cruelty [S 13 (1)(ia)]

Supreme Court judgment on Savitri Pandey v Premchandra Pandey (2002) AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 591,2002(2), SCC 73,2002 states ‘Cruelty’ consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health.  Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. “Cruelty” therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. 

Thus cruelty can be physical or mental; its effects varies from individual to individual, also depends upon physical and mental condition, social and economic status and position in life of the parties. The conduct complained of must be of serious nature and higher than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. Our experience in the field of handling matrimonial matters makes us a compassionate counselor to pay attention to the details and work towards getting a most suitable relief when you are facing cruelty by your spouse.

c)       Desertion [S 13 (1)(ib)]

Desertion is the intentional and permanent forsaking abandonment of one spouse by the other without that spouses express or implied consent and without reasonable cause. It is taken as a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. It is not just withdrawal from a place but from a state of things and is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. The deserted spouse is the one who initiates the divorce proceedings. To apply this criteria i) the fact of separation for at least 2 years and ii) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end by the deserter is considered. The offence of desertion was said to commence when factum of separation and the animus deserendi co-existed, it being not necessary that they should commence at the same time. From the point of view of the deserted spouse i) the absence of consent for withdrawal from the company and ii) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving matrimonial home, are to be substantiated while seeking the divorce.

d)     Conversion to other religion [S 13 (1)(ii)]

Conversion means that the person has voluntarily relinquished his or her religion and adopted another religion after going through some formal ceremony. In case of the inability to prove the conduct of formal ceremony to convert, all that is necessary to establish that the person has adopted the rules of the said faith to embrace that religion. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 covers Hindu, Budhist, Jain and Sikh religions. Hence conversion among these religious faiths cannot be regarded as a conversion to other religion. Conversion to Christianity/ Islam by a Hindu spouse, by acknowledging or formally recognizing it as an object of his faith or belief is considered as conversion in the context of matrimonial law.

Also read: – Christian Divorce Lawyers in Bangalore

e)      Incurable Unsoundness of  Mind [S 13 (1)(iii)]

To claim matrimonial relief under this ground, the two requirements are 

i) unsoundness of mind must be incurable

ii) mental disorder, whether continuous or intermittent, must be of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Under matrimonial statutes ‘unsoundness of mind’ refers to a degree of mental disturbance so menacing and so disabling that the person may be considered from legal point of view to be immune from certain responsibilities and may disallow him/her certain privileges that may require a degree of competence. A strict standard of proof is required from the spouse claiming matrimonial relief on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the other spouse. A medical examination report which has diagnosed the party with the said disorder acts as a proof of the claim.

As observed in the case of Pramatha Kumar Maity v Ashima Maity AIR 1991 Cal 123,  ‘The legislature has not provided in S 13(1)(iii) that mental disorder or unsoundness of mind by itself would amount to a matrimonial fault unless such unsoundness is incurable or the extent of disorder exceeds the tolerable limit of the matrimonial partner to lead a conjugal life.’

Provision of law under S 13 (1) iii has an explanation to understand it further (a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub—normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; 

f)       Venereal Diseases [S 13 (1)(v)]

In case one of the spouses is suffering from Venereal Diseases (VD) means the disease that can be transmitted through sexual intercourse which are also referred as Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) or Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD), in its communicable form, the other spouse can seek divorce on that ground. The petitioner need not prove any minimum period during which the other party has been suffering from such disease. 

g)      Renunciation of the world [S 13(1)(vi)]

In cases where one of the spouses choose to renounce the world following any religious order, allows the other spouse to seek matrimonial relief.

As decided in Satyanarayan v H R E Board, Madras AIR 1957 AP 824, ‘When a Hindu enters into an order of Sanyas or Vanaprastha, it is popularly considered to be a civil death. Of course mere assumption of the title ‘Sanyasi’ is not enough, proper theological admission into Sanyas order is necessary.’    

h)      Disappearance [S 13(1)(vii)]

Not heard to be alive or disappearance is a different ground than the desertion where deserted spouse may know that the other spouse is living while in the case of disappearance the aggrieved spouse does not know the whereabouts or whether the other spouse is alive or dead as he or she has not been heard of for a long time. To consider ‘Disappearance’ as a ground for divorce, ‘Long time’ is specified as 7 years in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Before the court gives any relief under this ground, it satisfies itself that sufficient enquiries have been made to obtain whereabouts of the respondent and that all such reasonable attempts ended in disappointment. For, when a decree has been made on this ground, the marital relationship cannot be restored by the return of the missing spouse. 

i)        No cohabitation post RCR or Judicial Separation order [S 13(1-A) (i) & (ii)]

Restitution of Conjugal Rights or RCR is such remedy, which can be sought by either of the spouses, who is abandoned by the other. It is a remedy available against the spouse who has left the company of the aggrieved party without any reasonable ground and refusing to cohabit. After obtaining this order, if the cohabitation could not be established by the spouses for a period 1 year or more, this can be used as a ground against the party unwilling to cohabit. Similarly if there was a decree for judicial separation and post that for 1 year or longer cohabitation is not resumed, that can be used as a ground for seeking matrimonial relief. 

j) Exclusive grounds of divorce for women [S 13 (2) (i to iv)]

When the husband is guilty of Bigamy, Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality, wife can seek matrimonial relief. It is immaterial whether the husband was at all prosecuted or not or was convicted or not. For, the wife has to establish the charge afresh in the matrimonial action. 

Another ground available exclusively for wife is that after the order of maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no resumption of cohabitation for one year or longer, is also a ground to seek divorce by the wife. 

k)        Irretrievable breakdown of marriage

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage even though is not a ground mentioned under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce; through judicial decisions this ground has become a valid reason for the spouses to seek remedy. This ground has been considered either as no fault ground or as an extension of mental cruelty.