Divorce In Hindu Law: Theories & Grounds with Latest Amendments

Introduction To Divorce in Hindu Law

The term ‘divorce’ comes from the Latin word ‘divortium’ which means ‘to turn aside’, ‘to separate’. Divorce is the legal cessation of a matrimonial bond. Divorce puts the marriage to an end, and the parties revert back to their unmarried status and are once again free to marry. All rights and mutual obligations of husband-and-wife ceases. In other words, after a decree of dissolution of marriage, the marriage comes to an end and the parties cease to be husband and wife, and are free to go their own ways. There remain no bonds between them except in relation to Section 25 [1] and Section 26 [2] of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Matrimonial causes (i.e., legal action in respect of marriages) in their real sense did not exist in Hindu law before 1955, although some reliefs in respect of marriage could be obtained under general law. Thus, a suit for a declaration that a marriage is null and void could be filed under Section 9 C.P.C [3]. The modern matrimonial law in India has been greatly influenced by and based upon English matrimonial law.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [4] has introduced a revolutionary amendment to the shastric Hindu law. It provides for the dissolution of marriage. Under the Hindu law, divorce does not take place unless it has been granted by a court. Before passing of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 [5], the grounds for judicial separation and divorce were different. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 makes the grounds of divorce and judicial separation common. An aggrieved party may sue for divorce or judicial separation.

Theories of Divorce

There are basically three theories for divorce-fault theory, mutual consent theory & irretrievable breakdown of marriage theory.

Under the Fault theory or the offences theory or the guilt theory, marriage can be dissolved only when either party to the marriage has committed a matrimonial offence. It is necessary to have a guilty and an innocent party, and only innocent party can seek the remedy of divorce. However, the most striking feature and drawback is that if both parties have been at fault, there is no remedy available.

Another theory of divorce is that of mutual consent. The underlying rationale is that since two persons can marry by their free will, they should also be allowed to move out of their relationship of their own free will. However, critics of this theory say that this approach will promote immorality as it will lead to hasty divorces and parties would dissolve their marriage even if there were slight incompatibility of temperament.

The third theory relates to the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The breakdown of marriage is defined as “such failure in the matrimonial relationships or such circumstances adverse to that relation that no reasonable probability remains for the spouses again living together as husband & wife.” Such marriage should be dissolved with maximum fairness & minimum bitterness, distress & humiliation.

Some of the grounds available under Hindu Marriage Act can be said to be under the theory of frustration by reason of specified circumstances. These include civil death, renouncement of the world etc.

Grounds of Divorce

It is conceded in all jurisdictions that public policy, good morals & the interests of society require that marital relation should be surrounded with every safeguard and its severance be allowed only in the manner and for the cause specified by law. Divorce is not favoured or encouraged, and is permitted only for grave reasons.

In the modern Hindu law, all the three theories of divorce are recognized & divorce can be obtained on the basis of any one of them [6]. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 originally, based divorce on the fault theory, and enshrined nine fault grounds in Section 13(1) on which either the husband or wife could sue for divorce, and two fault grounds in section 13(2) on which wife alone could seek [7] divorce. In 1964, by an amendment, certain clauses of Section 13(1) were amended in the form of Section 13(1A), thus recognizing two grounds of breakdown of marriage. The 1976 amendment Act inserted two additional fault grounds of divorce for wife & a new section 13B for divorce by mutual consent. [8]

The various grounds on which a decree of divorce can be obtained are as follows-

Adultery

While adultery may not have been recognized as a criminal offence in all countries, the matrimonial offence of adultery or the fault ground of adultery is recognized in most. Even under the Shastric Hindu law, where divorce had not been recognized, adultery was condemned in the most unequivocal terms. There is no clear definition of the matrimonial offence of adultery. In adultery there must be voluntary or consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and another, whether married or unmarried, of the opposite sex, not being the other’s spouse, during the subsistence of marriage. Thus, intercourse with the former or latter wife of a polygamous marriage is not adultery. But if the second marriage is void, then sexual intercourse with the second wife will amount to adultery.

Though initially a divorce could be granted only if such spouse was living in adultery, by the Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976 [9], the present position under the Hindu Marriage Act is that it considers even the single act of adultery enough for the decree of divorce.

Since adultery is an offence against marriage, it is necessary to establish that at the time of the act of adultery the marriage was subsisting. Also, it follows that unless one willingly consents to the act, there can be no adultery. If the wife can establish that the co-respondent raped her, then the husband would not be entitled to divorce.

In Swapna Ghose v. Sadananda Ghose [10] the wife found her husband and the adulteress to be lying in the same bed at night and further evidence of the neighbours that the husband was living with the adulteress as husband and wife is sufficient evidence of adultery. The fact of the matter is that direct proof of adultery is very rare.

The offence of adultery may be proved by:

Circumstantial evidence
Contracting venereal disease

Cruelty

The concept of cruelty is a changing concept. The modern concept of cruelty includes both mental and physical cruelty. Acts of cruelty are behavioural manifestations stimulated by different factors in the life of spouses, and their surroundings and therefore; each case has to be decided on the basis of its own set of facts [11]. While physical cruelty is easy to determine, it is difficult to say what mental cruelty consists of. Perhaps, mental cruelty is lack of such conjugal kindness, which inflicts pain of such a degree and duration that it adversely affects the health, mental or bodily, of the spouse on whom it is inflicted. In Pravin Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta [12], the court has defined mental cruelty as ‘the state of mind [13].’

Some Instances of Cruelty are as follows–

false accusations of adultery or unchastity
demand of dowry
refusal to have marital intercourse/children
impotency
birth of child
drunkenness
threat to commit suicide
wife’s writing false complaints to employer of the husband
incompatibility of temperament
irretrievable breakdown of marriage

The following do not amount to cruelty-

ordinary wear & tear of married life
wife’s refusal to resign her job
desertion per se
Outbursts of temper without rancor.

Desertion

Desertion means the rejection by one party of all the obligations of marriage- the permanent forsaking or abandonment of one spouse by the other without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the other. It means a total repudiation of marital obligation. [14]

The following 5 conditions must be present to constitute a desertion; they must co-exist to present a ground for divorce:

the factum of separation
animus deserendi [15] (intention to desert)
desertion without any reasonable cause
desertion without consent of other party
Statutory period of two years must have run out before a petition is presented.

In Bipinchandra v. Prabhavati [16] the Supreme Court held that where the respondent leaves the matrimonial home with an intention to desert, he will not be guilty of desertion if subsequently he shows an inclination to return & is prevented from doing so by the petitioner. [17]

Conversion

When the other party has ceased to be Hindu by conversion to any other religion for e.g., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, a divorce can be granted.

Insanity

Insanity as a ground of divorce has the following two requirements-

The respondent has been incurably of unsound mind
The respondent has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Leprosy

Contagiousness of leprosy and repulsive outward manifestations are responsible for creating a psychology where man not only shuns the company of lepers but looks at them scornfully. Thus, it is provided as a ground for divorce. The onus of proving this is on the petitioner. [18]

Venereal Disease

At present, it is a ground for divorce if it is communicable by nature irrespective of the period for which the respondent has suffered from it. The ground is made out if it is shown that the disease is in communicable form & it is not necessary that it should have been communicated to the petitioner (even if done innocently). [19]

Renunciation

“Renunciation of the world” is a ground for divorce only under Hindu law, as renunciation of the world is a typical Hindu notion. Modern codified Hindu law lays down that a spouse may seek divorce if the other party has renounced the world and has entered a holy order. A person who does this is considered as civilly dead. Such renunciation by entering into a religious order must be unequivocal & absolute. [20]

Presumption of Death

You can definitely be granted divorce in this case. A person is presumed to be dead, if he/she has not been heard of as being alive or there is no reason to believe that he is alive, for a period of at least seven years by the petitioner. The decree obtained under the Hindu Marriage Act would not be a decree of actual death of the missing spouse; it would only be of the presumption of death, as provided under Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [21].

The following documents will be required for granting divorce on these grounds Marriage certificate

Address proof of husband
Address proof of wife
Four passport size photographs of marriage of husband & wife
Proof that the petitioner & his/her relatives have not heard of the missing person in the last 7 years or more
Particulars relating to the last date of cohabitation and the place & date where the respondent was last seen
Proof that an effective search of that person has been made
Proof of special circumstances if the person wants to prove ‘presumed death’ before lapse of 7 years [22]

Case Law: – Savitri Devi vs The State on 4 March, 2008 [23]

Wife’s Special Grounds for Divorce

Besides the grounds enumerated above, a wife has been provided four additional grounds of divorce under Section 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [24].

These are as follows-

Pre-Act Polygamous Marriage

This clause states the ground for divorce as, “That the husband has another wife from before the commencement of the Act, alive at the time of the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner. For example, the case of Venkatamma v. Patil [25] where a man had two wives, one of whom sued for divorce, and whiles the petition was pending, he divorced the second wife. He then averred that since he was left only with one wife, and the petition should be dismissed. The Court rejected the plea.

Such a ground is available if both the marriages are valid marriages & the other wife (2nd wife) should be present at the time of filing of the petition. However, today this ground is no more of practical importance.

Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality

Under this clause, a divorce petition can be presented if the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.

Non-Resumption of Cohabitation after a Decree/Order of Maintenance

If a wife has obtained an order of maintenance in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.pc, 1973 [26] or a decree under Section 18, Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 & cohabitation has not been resumed between parties after one year or upwards, then this is a valid ground for suing for divorce. [27]

Repudiation of Marriage

This provision provides a ground for divorce to the wife when the marriage was solemnized before she attained the age of fifteen years, and she has repudiated the marriage, but before the age of eighteen. Such repudiation may be express (written or spoken words) or may be implied from the conduct of the wife (left husband & refused to come back). Moreover, this right (added by the 1976 amendment) has only a retrospective effect i.e., it can be invoked irrespective of the fact that the marriage was solemnized before or after such amendment.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

Irrespective of the three remedies available to parties that is: restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation and divorce, the judiciary in India is demanding irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a special ground for divorce, as sometimes courts face some difficulties in granting the decree of divorce due to some of the technical loopholes in the existing theories of divorce. Both the Supreme Court and Law Committee consider the implementation of such a theory as a boon to parties who for one or the other reasons are unable to seek the decree of divorce. [28] Therefore in the opinion of the Supreme Court and Law Commission of India, it is very essential to make it a special and separate ground mission that introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as a special ground will do any public good.

Case Law:- Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram Narayanan reported in (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 588

Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 primarily there are three theories under which divorce is granted:

Guilt theory or Fault theory,
Consent theory,
Supervening circumstances theory.

The Irretrievable breakdown theory of divorce is the fourth and the most controversial theory in legal jurisprudence [29], based on the principle that marriage is a union of two persons based on love affection and respect for each other. [30] If any of these is hampered due to any reason and if the matrimonial relation between the spouses reaches to such an extent from where it becomes completely irreparable, that is a point where neither of the spouse can live peacefully with each other and acquire the benefits of a matrimonial relations, than it is better to dissolve the marriage as now there is no point of stretching such a dead relationship, which exist only in name and not in reality. [31]

The breakdown of relationship is presumed de facto. The fact that parties to marriage are living separately for reasonably longer period of time (say two or three years), with any reasonable cause (like cruelty, adultery, desertion) or even without any reasonable cause (which shows the unwillingness of the parties or even of one of the parties to live together) and all their attempts to reunite failed, it will be presumed by law that relationship is dead now.

Recently the Supreme Court Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [32] has recommended an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby either spouse can cite irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a reason to seek divorce. Expressing the concern that divorce could not be granted in number of cases where marriages were virtually dead due to the absence of the provision of irretrievable breakdown, the court strongly advocated incorporating this concept in the law in view of the change of circumstances.

The Court observed that public interest demands that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained. However, where a marriage has been wrecked beyond any hope of being repaired, public interest requires the recognition of the fact. The judgment notes that there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort and that situations causing misery should not be allowed to continue indefinitely as law has a responsibility to adequately respond to the needs of the society.

The profound reasoning is that in situations when there is absolutely no chance to live again jointly or when it is beyond repair, in such a case it would be futile to keep the marital tie alive. Here the ground of irretrievable breakdown is really needed. But it should not be oblivious that the ground, when introduced, needs to provide safeguards to ensure that no party is exploited. [33]

CHANGES IN THE LAW OF DIVORCE UNDER HINDU LAW

The modern matrimonial law in India has been greatly influenced by and based upon English matrimonial law. In England, the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 [34] for the first-time permitted divorce by judicial process. Before 1857, divorce could be obtained only by a private Act of parliament and only very rich could afford this luxury. Under the Act, the husband could file a petition for divorce on the ground of wife’s adultery (single act was enough), but a wife had to prove adultery coupled with either incest, bigamy, cruelty or two years desertion or alternatively, rape or any other unnatural offence. This was the typical mid-Victorian attitude to sexual morality. [35] The Indian matrimonial law has closely followed the development in English law. The Converts Marriage Dissolution Act, 1866 was passed to provide facility of divorce to those native converts to Christianity whose spouses refused to cohabit with them on account of their conversion. But the first divorce statute was passed in 1869.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has introduced a revolutionary amendment to the shastric Hindu law. It provides for the dissolution of marriage. Under the Hindu law, divorce does not take place unless it has been granted by a court. Before passing of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 [36], the grounds for judicial separation and divorce were different. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 makes the grounds of divorce and judicial separation common. An aggrieved party may sue for divorce or judicial separation.

In 1964, Section 13 (1-A) [37] has been inserted containing 2 clauses under which, non-resumption of cohabitation for 2 years or upwards after the decree of judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights was made a ground of divorce. This is a modification of clauses (viii) and (ix) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the amendment, either party to the marriage can prefer such petitions. However, this facility is not available to the cases where the decrees of judicial separation and restitution of conjugal rights were obtained prior to the passing of the Amendment of 1964. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 reduced the time limits form two years to one year. [38] Section 13 (1-A) introduced Break-down theory in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The provisions regarding divorce have been twice amended since the passing of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1964 and ii) by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. [39] The original provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding divorce have been liberalized by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. It also added a new ground namely divorce by mutual consent of the parties has been made available as a matrimonial relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

RELIEF UNDER JUDICIAL SEPARATION

Section 10 [40] provides that either party to marriage may present a petition praying for a decree of judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 13 and in case of wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-Section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.

Before passing of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, the grounds for divorce are more serious than those for judicial separation. After the amendment of 1976, Section 10 has been completely recast. The various grounds for judicial separation mentioned in the old Section 10 have been omitted. It is provided that the petitioner may apply for judicial separation on precisely the same grounds that can support a petition for divorce. [41] The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 has inserted a new Section 13-A in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to give statutory recognition to the judiciary evolved law.

Section 13-A runs as under: “In any proceedings under this Act, on a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, except in so far as the petition is founded on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii), (vi) and (vii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13 [42], the court may, if it considers it just so to do having regard to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree for judicial separation.” Hence if a petition for divorce is filed on the ground of change of religion, renunciation of the world or presumption of death, the court has no power to pass a decree of judicial separation in place of decree for divorce. Under Section 14, no petition for divorce can be presented within one year of marriage. For the lesser remedy of judicial separation, there is no such restriction.

REMEDY FOR DIVORCE:

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 originally based divorce on the fault theory and enshrined 9 fault grounds in Section 13 (1) on which, either the husband or the wife could sue for divorce. Section 13 has undergone a substantial change by reason of subsequent amendments. The grounds mentioned in sub-Section (1) and (1-A) are available to both the husband and wife; while the grounds mentioned under sub-Section (2) are available only to the wife. [43] In 1964, Section 13 (1-A) has been inserted containing two clauses under which, non-resumption of cohabitation for two years or upwards after the decree of judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights was made a ground of divorce.

This is a modification of clauses (viii) and (ix) 32 of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976, the period of two years is reduced to one year. Section 13 (1-A) introduced an element of Break-down theory in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. [44] The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 originally contained two fault grounds in Section 13 (2) on which, a Hindu wife alone could sue for divorce. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976 has inserted two additional fault grounds of divorce for wife [45] and a new Section 13-B under which, divorce by mutual consent has been made available as a matrimonial relief. Thus, in the modern Hindu law, the position is that all the three theories of divorce are recognized and divorce can be obtained on the basis of any one of them. [46] Further, the customary mode of divorce is also retained.

FAULT GROUNDS OF DIVORCE:

ADULTERY:

Before passing of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976, in order to obtain divorce on this ground, the petitioner had to prove that the other party was living in adultery which would cover more or less continuous and habitual course of action. An isolated act of immorality was not sufficient. But after the passing of the Act of 1976, even a single and isolated act of infidelity would be a sufficient ground to obtain divorce. [47]

Veena Kalia v. Jatinder Nath Kalia [48], the husband after marriage went abroad for studies leaving his two minor daughters and his wife in India. He did not try to take his wife with him and left her. For twenty-three years, they lived apart and the husband contracted a second marriage there. He had three children out of the second marriage. He was thus, guilty of cruelty, desertion and adultery. The wife got divorce on these grounds and the husband was ordered to pay her maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month. The court also ordered him to deposit Rs. 10 lacs in the court towards the expenses of his daughters’ marriages.

CRUELTY:

Before passing of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976, cruelty was a ground only for judicial separation [49] and the petitioner was required to prove that the respondent had treated him or her 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.

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 which makes cruelty also a ground for divorce, has changed the wording of the clause thus: “respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty”. [50] The change in the definition of cruelty will signify that an act or omission or conduct which constitutes cruelty is a ground for judicial separation or divorce. Even if it causes no apprehension of any sort in the mind of the petitioner.

A new dimension has been given to the concept of cruelty. Explanation to Section 498-A of I.P.C. 1860 [51] provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty. Such wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman) would also amount to cruelty. Harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also constitute cruelty.

DESERTION:

Desertion was a ground only for judicial separation under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [52] However, after passing of the Act of 1976, this is a ground for both divorce as well as judicial separation under Section 13 (1) (i-b).

CONVERSION:

Under Section 13 (1) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if the spouse has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, divorce may be obtained. Originally, this ground was not available for judicial separation in Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By an Amendment of Section 10 in 1964, it was made a ground for judicial separation. Subsequently in 1976, the grounds for judicial separation were omitted in Section 10 and were incorporated with slight modifications in Section 13, and are therefore a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ii). [53]

LEPROSY:

Before passing of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 the position of ground of leprosy for divorce was as follows:

“the other party has for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from a virulent form of leprosy” [54], it was a ground for judicial separation.

CONCLUSION

Hindus consider marriage to be a sacred bond. Prior to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, there was no provision for divorce. The concept of getting divorced was too radical for the Indian society then. The wives were the silent victims of such a rigid system. However, time has changed; situations have changed; social ladder has turned. Now the law provides for a way to get out of an unpleasant marriage by seeking divorce in a court of law. The actual benefactors of such a provision are women who no longer have to silently endure the harassment or injustice caused to them by their husbands. But the manner in which the judiciary is dealing with the subject of irretrievable break down of marriage, it is feared that it will completely pause the system of marriages.

Every theory has its negative and positive traits. There applicability differs from situation to situation. Therefore, it is very essential that the lawmakers of our country should deal with the subject in a very cautious manner after considering in detail its future implications.

Bibliography

Books:

Dr. Paras Diwan- Modern Hindu Law, 18th edn. 2007, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana)
Prof. G.C.V. Subba Rao- Family Law in India, 8th edn. 2005, S. Gogia & Company, Hyderabad
R.K. Agarwala- Hindu Law, 21st edn. 2003, p.73, Central Law Agency, Allahabad
Mayne’s- Hindu Law & Usage, 13th edn. 1995, p.246, Bharat Law House, New Delhi

Websites:

www.shodhganga.com
www.legalservices.com
www.academike.com

[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95286/#:~:text=(1)%20Any%20court%20exercising%20jurisdiction,her%20or%20his%20maintenance%20and

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/972693/

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=sec.9%20of%20civil%20procedure%20code

[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1284729/

[5] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01638

[6] B.M. Gandhi- Hindu Law, 3rd edn. 2008, p.297, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow. 2 . Sankaralingam v. Suan,

[7] Sankaralingam v. Suan, 1894 ILR Mad 479; Premanbai v. Channoolal AIR 1963 MP 57; Shivalingaiah v. Chowdamma AIR 1956 Mys 17; cf: R.C. Nagpal- Modern Hindu Law, p. 62

[8] Dr. Paras Diwan- Modern Hindu Law, 18th edn. 2007, p.128, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana)

[9] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01638

[10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/296734/

[11] Permanent alimony and maintenance.

[12] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353460/

[13] Custody, maintenance and education of minor children

[14] Dr. Paras Diwan- Family Law, 6th edn. 2001, p.124, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana

[15] http://www.lawyerintl.com/law-dictionary/7516-animus%20deserendi#:~:text=The%20intention%20to%20bring%20cohabitation,bring%20cohabitation%20to%20an%20end.

[16] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1131783/

[17] Dr. Paras Diwan- Family Law, 6th edn. 2001, p.124, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana).

[18] Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947; Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949

[19] Prof. G.C.V. Subba Rao- Family Law in India, 8th edn. 2005, p.205, S. Gogia & Company, Hyderabad

[20] See grounds of divorce under Section 13

[21] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/482978/

[22] https://lawrato.com/divorce-legal-advice/how-to-prove-presumption-of-death-as-grounds-for-divorce-50506

[23] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7379127/

[24] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/493667/

[25] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1786295/

[26] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056396/

[27] R.K. Agarwala- Hindu Law, 21st edn. 2003, p.59, Central Law Agency, Allahabad

[28] R.K. Agarwala- Hindu Law, 21st edn. 2003, p.58, Central Law Agency, Allahabad.

[29] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/break_mar.htm

[30] See grounds of divorce under Section 13.

[31] Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947 and the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act 1949, and the Saurashtra Hindu Divorce Act, 1952. All these Acts have been repealed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

[32] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643829/

[33] R.K. Agarwala- Hindu Law, 21st edn. 2003, p.73, Central Law Agency, Allahabad.

[34] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/bloodlines/familysecrets.shtml?entry=matrimonial_causes_act&theme=familysecrets#:~:text=The%201857%20Act%20required%20a,had%20committed%20incest%20or%20bigamy.&text=If%20a%20woman%20was%20divorced,legal%20rights%20to%20her%20children.

[35] Dr. Paras Diwan- Family Law, 6th edn. 2001, p.124, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana)

[36] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01638

[37] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646471/

[38] Prof. G.C.V. Subba Rao- Family Law in India, 8th edn. 2005, p.205, S. Gogia & Company, Hyderabad.

[39] Ramesh Chandra Nagpal- Modern Hindu Law, 1st edn. 1983, p.144, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

[40] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888857/

[41] Narasimha Reddy and others v. M. Boosamma AIR 1976 AP 77.

[42] The custom of divorce existed among the lower castes such as Sudras among the Hindus of Manipur Divorce at the pleasure of either party was permissive

[43] Mayne’s -Hindu Law & Usage, 13th edn. 1995, p.218, Bharat Law House, New Delhi.

[44] Prof. G.C.V. Subba Rao- Family Law in India, 8th edn. 2005, p.205, S. Gogia & Company, Hyderabad

[45] Section 13 (2) (iii) and (iv).

[46] Dr. Paras Diwan- Modern Hindu Law, 18th edn. 2007, p.129, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana)

[47] B.M. Gandhi- Hindu Law, 3rd edn. 2008, p. 300, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow

[48] AIR 1996 Del 54

[49] Section 10 (1) (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Judicial separation is a lesser remedy when compared to divorce. Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the parties to cohabit with each other. Mutual obligations and rights are not available to the parties. Nonetheless marriage subsists. At any time they can resume cohabitation. If the cohabitation is not resumed for a period of one year or more after the passing of judicial separation, any party may apply for divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

[50] Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

[51] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538436/

[52] Sec. 10 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

[53] Mayne’s- Hindu Law & Usage, 13th edn. 1995, p.246, Bharat Law House, New Delhi

[54] Dr. Paras Diwan on Hindu Law- 2 nd edn. 2005, p.869, Orient Publishing Co., Allahabad.

Disclaimer: The opinions and views in the articles and research papers published on this website; are personal and independent opinions of the author. The website is not responsible for them.

Legal Thirst has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, Events, and various opportunities.
You can click on this link and join:

Telegram Group

Instagram Page

Follow Legal Thirst on Instagram and Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.