Introduction

Indian population consists of people from various religions. The constitution allows every citizen to be governed under the personal laws relevant to the religion they belong to. It also applies in the matter of marriage and divorce.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is the law enacted to manage the Hindu marriage, divorce and other marriage related issues. It also helps in regulating the marriage institution, which includes the validity of the marriage and conditions for invalidity.

The Hindu Marriage Act guides Hindus to be in a systematic marriage bond. It provides rights to both husband and wife as well as safety to their family to avoid the sufferings from parental issues.

Hindus believe in marriage as a sacred bond, and they try to keep it intact for the lifetime. However, not every couple is lucky to keep it continuing for long. When differences between the couple increase and go beyond to fix it up, they go for the solution of divorce.

The Hindu Marriage Act does not permit divorce based on just unhappiness, or either of the partners proves that the marriage is no longer tenable. There is a whole process of filing a divorce.

The grounds for Divorce

Usually, a divorce petition can be filed after one year from the date of marriage. Though, in certain cases such as mental instability of the respondent or suffering by the petitioner, the Court may allow the petitioner to present the case earlier than the prescribed period.

Certain the grounds have been specified in the Hindu Marriage Act based on which a court may dissolve a marriage. Those are:

• Adultery - The respondent has had sexual intercourse with another male or female other than spouse after marriage.
• Cruelty - The respondent has abused physically or mentally to the petitioner.
• Desertion - The petitioner has been deserted by the respondent for more than two years.
• Conversion to another religion - The Hindu respondent, has converted to another religion.
• Unsound mind - The respondent diagnosed with the unsound mind since the marriage, and it is impossible to carry normal married life.
• Disease - The respondent diagnosed with the disease, which is a venereal disease in a communicable form.
• Presumption of death - The respondent has not been seen alive for more than seven years.
• There should not be the continuation of cohabitation for at least one year after a decree of judicial separation.
• There has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for one year after passing of the order.

A wife may seek a divorce on the following as well on following the grounds:

• After marriage, the husband is found guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.
• Cohabitation is not resumed within a year after an order for maintenance.

In addition to the above-said the grounds, marriage can be declared void under the following circumstances:

• If either party has a spouse living at the time of marriage.
• Parties are within the degrees of prohibited relationship.
• Parties are sapindas of each other.

In addition to the above-said the grounds, marriage can be voidable under the following circumstances:

• Marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent.
• Conditions laid down in section 5 (ii) for Hindu Marriage are violated.
• Where consent of the petitioner was obtained by force or by fraud.
• Respondent, at the time of marriage, pregnant by some person other than petitioner.

Divorce by Mutual Consent

Divorce by mutual consent is the fastest and comparatively less painful way to get a divorce in India. A petition should be filed in the Court by the married couple who are seeking a divorce. The most important the ground for filing the petition is that the couple should have been living individually or separately for one or more years. Once the petition is filed, the Court gives a time frame of 6 months to 18 months to reconsider their decision of divorce and withdraw the petition. However, if the petition is not withdrawn during the given time, the Court starts the process of the petition. After examining the details and having heard from both the parties, the Court may grant a decree of divorce.

Supreme Court on Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act - 1955

• Divorce by mutual consent - Cooling off six months' period prescribed under S. 13-B is not mandatory - Can be waived under certain circumstances.
  Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
  Civil Appeal No. 11158 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20184 of 2017), D/- 12 - 9 - 2017
• Divorce - Cruelty - Few isolated incidents of long past and that too condoned due to compromising behaviour of parties - Not amounts to cruelty.
  Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh
  Civil Appeal Nos. 7114-7115 of 2014, D/- 8 - 3 - 2017
• Divorce - The ground of cruelty by wife - Wife allegedly making reckless, defamatory and false allegations against husband, his family members and colleagues, lowering his reputation - Allegations made, found patently false - Conduct of wife of levelling false accusations against the husband, amounts to cruelty - Husband entitled to a decree of divorce.
  Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja
  Civil Appeal No. 10719 of 2013, D/- 24 - 4 - 2017
• Divorce - Cruelty by wife - Persistent effort of wife to constrain husband to be separated from family - Constitutes an Act of 'cruelty' - Husband entitled to a decree of divorce.
  Narendra v. K. Meena.
  Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2008, D/- 6 - 10 - 2016
• Divorce petition - Use of DNA test - Infidelity, the ground for divorce - Petitioner claiming DNA test of himself and child born to wife to substantiate the allegation of infidelity - DNA test is only way to substantiate or dislodge allegation of infidelity - Order to perform DNA test proper – Court, however, gave liberty to wife to disregard order with the caveat that if she refuses presumption under S. 114 Illustration (h) will be raised.
  Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy
  Civil Appeal No. 9744 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5694 of 2013), D/- 15 - 10 - 2014
• Cruelty - Spouse, abusing other as being born from a prostitute, cannot be termed as 'wear and tear' of family life - Petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty cannot be dismissed on that the ground.
  Vinod Kumar Subbiah v. Saraswathi Palaniappan
  Civil Appeal Nos. 5511-5512 of 2014 D/- 4 - 4 - 2015
• Cruelty - Husband was in a foreign country and didn't know laws and procedure in India -Therefore, summoning police by wife on false or flimsy the grounds - Cannot be termed as 'wear and tear' of family life.
  Vinod Kumar Subbiah v. Saraswathi Palaniappan
  Civil Appeal Nos. 5511-5512 of 2014 D/- 4 - 4 - 2015
• Cruelty - Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home -Would indubitably result in cruelty to other spouse.
  Vinod Kumar Subbiah v. Saraswathi Palaniappan
  Civil Appeal Nos. 5511-5512 of 2014 D/- 4 - 4 - 2015
• Divorce - The ground of incurable unsound mind - Essential attributed of such disease is an inability to manage his/her affairs - Respondent wife suffering from the illness of schizophrenia type - Medical report, however, showing that respondent did not show symptoms of psychotic illness at present and has responded well to the treatment - Report further stating that with treatment coupled with proper family support a schizophrenic patient can continue marital life - Facts also showing that respondent had not only completed MBBS but also did a post-graduate diploma in Medicine and was continuously working as a Government Medical Officer which was impossible had she been suffering from any serious kind of mental disorder - Considering improved health of wife and welfare of their child husband held not entitled to a divorce.
  Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha.
  Civil Appeal No. 8264 of 2013 (Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 3544 of 2007), D/- 17 - 9 - 2013
• Divorce - Desertion - No sufficient evidence to establish that wife deserted husband with the intention to bring a matrimonial relationship to an end - Further period of two years immediately preceding presentation of the petition, not completed - Divorce on the ground of desertion cannot be granted.
  Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, MD v. Dr B.V. Ravi, M.D
  Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17 of 2010), D/- 30 - 6 - 2014
• Divorce - Mental cruelty - Parties to the marriage were doctors - Allegation that husband harboured notions of gender insensitivity or some kind of male chauvinism, not proved - Wife after delivery of child went directly to parents from hospital - Husband and his parents ignored in naming ceremony of son at her parents place - Joining of higher studies by wife not made known to husband - Attitude of wife despite decree for restitution of conjugal rights was not proper - Wife also launched criminal prosecution for harassment and dowry demand against husband and his family - In facts, held, the husband was treated with mental cruelty - Decree for divorce on that the ground - No interference.
  Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, MD v. Dr B.V. Ravi, M.D
  Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17 of 2010), D/- 30 - 6 - 2014
• S.13- Marital relationship - Disruption by the alienation of affection by a stranger - Action for compensation by an estranged spouse - Tenable only if a stranger had actively participated and played substantial parts in inducing or causing one spouses loss of other spouses' affection.
  Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. the State of Gujarat
  Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2004, D/- 9 - 9 - 2013
• Divorce - Mental disorder - Wife allegedly suffered brain damage after her caesarean operation - Conclusion of Medical Board examining wife that she did not manifest any signs of major mental disorder - It also clarifies that deficiencies suffered by the wife would not come in her way to discharge her matrimonial obligations - No evidence to prove that wife suffers from any incurable unsoundness of mind - Nor it could be said that she suffers from such mental disorder, that it cannot be reasonably expected of her husband to live with her - Husband not entitled for divorce.
  Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta.
  Civil Appeal Nos. 6332-6333 of 2009, D/- 1 - 7 - 2013
• Divorce - Cruelty - Husband alleging that wife would wake up in the middle of the night and thereafter she would not allow him to sleep - Further allegations that wife would shout and scream without any provocation or cause, at any time of day - In the absence of any independent witnesses, the husband failed to establish that wife's behaviour was abnormal - No material on the record of the case, to substantiate alleged aggressive, erratic or abnormal behaviour of wife - Husband not entitled for divorce.
  Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta.
  Civil Appeal Nos. 6332-6333 of 2009, D/- 1 - 7 - 2013
• Divorce - Claim for, on the ground of mental disorder and cruelty - Maintainability - Couple advised not to conceive for a period of two years after abortion of first pregnancy - Contrary to medical advice, husband impregnated his wife within a period of eight months, i.e. well within risk period - Medical condition of wife on which appellant based his claim for divorce, is of his own doing - The grounds/facts on which a claim for divorce can be maintained are not available to the husband under the 'fault theory'.
  Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta.
  Civil Appeal Nos. 6332-6333 of 2009, D/- 1 - 7 - 2013
• Mental cruelty - Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in pleadings - Filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items having an adverse impact on business prospect or job of the spouse - Filing repeated false complaints and cases in Court - Instances of mental cruelty.
  K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa
  Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007), D/- 22 - 2 - 2013
• Mental cruelty - Wife filing complaint of harassment against husband and his family - Further making false allegation that her mother-in-law asked her to sleep with her father-in-law - Such scurrilous and vulgar statement is bound to cause mental cruelty to husband - Statement cannot be explained away on the ground that it was made to win husband back.
  K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa
  Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007), D/- 22 - 2 - 2013
• Mental cruelty - Spouse engaging in revengeful litigation - Wife filing complaint against husband and his family - Making false allegation of harassment and unfounded and indecent allegation against mother-in-law - Every effort made by wife by filing appeals and revisions to see that husband and his family is put behind bars - Wife also making an effort to see that husband loses job - Conduct of wife sufficient to cause mental cruelty.
  K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa
  Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007), D/- 22 - 2 - 2013
• Mental cruelty - Staying together under one roof - Not pre-requisite for mental cruelty - Spouses living apart can by their acts cause mental cruelty.
  K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa
  Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007), D/- 22 - 2 - 2013
• Divorce - Mental cruelty - Husband pursuing a career in music - Wife constantly showing immense dislike to practise sessions in music undertaken by husband - Exhibiting total indifference towards teacher and disciple tradition - Had no concern for the public image of her husband - Also casting aspersions on the character of husband and trying to malign the reputation of husband's family - Concurrent finding that treatment meted out by wife to husband constitutes mental cruelty - Not liable to be interfered with - Husband entitled to a decree for divorce.
  U. Sree v. U. Srinivas
  Civil Appeal Nos. 8927-8928 of 2012 (Arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) Nos. 37449-37450 of 2012, arising out of C. C. Nos. 5877-5878 of 2012), D/- 11 - 12 - 2012
• Divorce - Cruelty - Husband alleging that wife put the entire blame of miscarriage on husband and his family - Though she had attended the marriage of his brother contrary to his advice - That she did not attend her husband when he suffered an accident and looked at his mother who underwent surgery - Finding that citing incident after miscarriage as an instance of cruelty, in reality, showed insensitivity of husband towards wife - Proper - Instances of the wife not attending hospitalised husband and his mother - Not supported by evidence - Refusal of divorce decree proper.
  Neelam Kumar v. Dayarani
  Civil Appeal No.1957 of 2006, D/- 6 - 7 - 2010
• Divorce - Cruelty - Proof - No conduct can be dubbed as cruelty in all circumstances - Petitioner complaining of cruelty - Has to make out a specific case that conducts alleged amounts to cruelty.
  Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur
  Civil Appeal No.5010 of 2007, D/- 8 - 10 - 2010
• Divorce - Cruelty - Petitioner and respondent both highly qualified - Petitioner husband alleging that respondent expressed displeasure about the conduct of his parents on the festival day in the presence of others - Such isolated frictions on some occasions - Does not amount to cruelty - Act of the respondent of beating her child and not feeding him - Condoned by petitioner husband - Petitioner not entitled to a divorce
  Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur
  Civil Appeal No.5010 of 2007, D/- 8 - 10 - 2010
• Criminal PC (2 of 1974), S.198- Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.11- Bigamy - Husband contracting second marriage during the life of the first wife - Non-filing of a complaint under S. 494, IPC by first wife - Does not mean that offence is wiped out, and monogamy sought to be achieved by means of S. 494, IPC merely remains in statute book - However, declaration of nullity of marriage must be made by competent Court as contemplated u/S. 11 of H. M. Act - Until such a declaration is made, the second wife continues to be wife within meaning of S. 494, IPC and entitled to maintain a complaint against her husband.
  Subhash Babu v. State of A. P. and Anr
  Criminal Appeal No. 1428 of 2011 (Arising out of S. L. P. (Cri.) 6349 of 2010), D/- 21 - 7 - 2011
• Cruelty - Proof - Use of physical violence need not be established - However, continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to other - May lead to an inference of cruelty.
  Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar
  Civil Appeal No.5387 of 2007, D/- 10 - 2 - 2010
• S.13- Divorce - Cruelty - Allegations and counter-allegations - Appellate Court found both parties at fault - Hence found it appropriate to order decree for judicial separation keeping in view of the welfare of their daughter - The only wife filed Letters Patent appeal - In the absence of compelling necessity - Order by Division Bench in said appeal granting a decree of divorce in favour of husband - Illegal.
  Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar
  Civil Appeal No.5387 of 2007, D/- 10 - 2 - 2010
• S.9- Divorce - Cruelty - Condonation - Is a question of fact - Wife staying away from husband - Refusing to stay at the matrimonial house - Husband thereupon filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Finding that on the filing of petition u/S. 9 earlier acts of cruelty stood condoned - Held on facts was proper.
  Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi
  Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 2007, D/- 9 - 2 - 2010
• Divorce - The grounds, cruelty and desertion - Petition not containing any specific allegation of cruelty against wife - As regards desertion clear evidence of daughter that her father used to beat her mother - Wife, therefore, had sufficient reason to stay apart - No case of cruelty or desertion made out - Husband not entitled to a divorce.
  Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi
  Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 2007, D/- 9 - 2 - 2010
• Cruelty - In matrimonial cases defies any definition - Can be of infinite variety - Its category can never be closed - Has to be judged by taking into account facts and circumstances of the given case - Not by any predetermined rigid formula.
  Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi
  Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 2007, D/- 9 - 2 - 2010
• Divorce - Sought by husband, appellant on the ground that wife was behaving in a cruel manner, derogatory to the appellant and family members - However trial Court and High Court concurrently found that it was appellant who treated wife with cruelty, rather than another way around - Refusal to grant the divorce in favour of appellant - No interference.
  Visnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma
  Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 13166 of 2007), D/- 27 - 2 - 2009
• Mens rea is not a necessary element - Relief cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.
  Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur
  Civil Appeal No. 6582 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10907 of 2007), D/- 7 - 11 - 2008
• Divorce - Mental cruelty - Wife, career-oriented lady - Wanting to pursue her professional career to achieve success - Constantly and continuously avoiding staying with husband and preventing him from having matrimonial relations - Letters written by her showing that she was keen to live independent life - Wanted that husband should not bring her marital status preventing her from pursuing her career - Wife also expressing in her letters that she had lost interest in marriage and did not believe in Indian Culture - Wife calling parent of husband as ghosts - Had gone to extent of making serious allegation that husband had married to an American woman - Conduct of wife amounts to mental cruelty.
  Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur
  Civil Appeal No. 6582 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10907 of 2007), D/- 7 - 11 - 2008
• Void marriage - Marriage between a Hindu and other professing other religion - Is null and void.
  Gullipilli Sowria Raj v. Bandaru Pavani alias Gullipilli Pavani
  Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 2005, D/- 4 - 12 - 2008
• Matrimonial disputes - Require consideration from human angle - Court has to take more affirmative and productive approach - Endeavour for reconciliation between parties - Necessary.
  Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur
  Civil Appeal No. 711 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9706 of 2006), D/- 13 - 2 - 2007
• Cruelty - Conduct complained of should be grave and weighty - Not ordinary wear and tear of married life - Conduct should be such that no reasonable person would tolerate it.
  Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli
  Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2004, D/- 21 - 3 - 2006
• Divorce - Mental cruelty to a married woman - Husband suffered from 'mental disorder' and not able to have a sexual relationship with wife - Non-consummation of marriage - By itself, constitutes mental cruelty and good the ground to grant a divorce - Husband attempted to commit suicide and was a case of paranoid Schizophrenia - Parties living separately; not seen each other since past 13 years - Considering humane aspects, wife, held, entitled to a decree of divorce.
  Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit
  Civil Appeal No. 1687 of 2006 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 26418 of 2004), D/- 21 - 3 - 2006
• Divorce - Petition by husband - Wife deserted husband on the ground that he was not having enough income - She left the matrimonial home in Mumbai only after about seven months of marriage and started living with her parents in Gujarat where she gave birth to a child and then continued with her teaching job - No attempt was made by her to stay with husband which clearly established animus deserendi - Parties knew their earnings even prior to marriage - However, wife had chosen to adopt course of conduct which proved desertion on her part without reasonable cause - It also amounted to wilful neglect of husband - Husband is, therefore, entitled to divorce decree.
  Geeta Jagdish Mangtani Appellant v. Jagdish Mangtani Respondent.
  Civil Appeal No. 576 of 2003, D/- 20 - 9 - 2005
• Null and void marriage - Wife instituted procedings for obtaining decree of divorce - No decree of divorce was obtained from Court - Wife only obtained a registered document of "Chhor Chithhi" from her previous husband - Existence of such customary divorce in community of wife not established - Thus in absence of any decree of dissolution of marriage from Court, first marriage of wife could be said to be subsisting when she went through second marriage - Finding that second marriage of wife was null and void - Not liable to be interfered with.
  Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga Appellant v. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga Respondent.
  Civil Appeal Nos. 1774 and 1775 of 2001, D/- 13 - 12 - 2004
• Divorce - Cruelty - Evidence showing that respondent wife asked husband to do certain things casting doubt on reputation, character and fidelity of her husband - It cannot be termed as simple advice but amounts to cruelty - Even after filing of divorce petition respondent wife went to extent of seeking detention of her husband for alleged disobedience of injunction order - Irretrievable breaking of marriage though not a the ground for dissolution of marriage - However, in extreme cases Supreme Court with a view to do complete justice and shorten agony of parties directed dissolution of marriage - Appellant entitled to decree of divorce.
  Jayachandra Appellant v. Aneel Kaur Respondent.
  Civil Appeal Nos. 7763-7764 of 2004 (arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 8655-8656 of 2003), D/- 2 - 12 - 2004
• S.13(1)- Divorce - The grounds of desertion - Wife deserted husband after seven months of marriage - Parties living separately for almost 14 years - Wife not prepared to lead conjugal life with husband - Attempts made by husband and his relatives in getting back wife to matrimonial home, failed - Good part of lives of both parties consumed in this litigation - Record showed that parties disliked each other - No chances of reconciliation - There is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage - With a view to put a quietus to litigation inter se and bitterness between parties - Decree of divorce on the ground of desertion can be granted.
  Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy
  Civil Appeal No. 5184 of 2005 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9794 of 2004), D/- 23 - 8 - 2005
• Divorce proceedings - Case of mental illness - Medical examination of party - Can be ordered by Court either suo motu or at instance of party.
  Sharda Appellant v. Dharmpal Respondent.
  Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2000, D/- 28 - 3 - 2003
• Divorce - The grounds, mental 'cruelty' meted out to wife - Allegations made by husband in written statement extensively with enumeration of instances and incidents against wife branding her as an unchaste woman, keeping extra marital relations - Is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife and viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards - Allegations amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law - Claim of the wife liable to be allowed - Withdrawal of said allegations unilaterally by the husband by filing an application for amendment of the written statement - Do not wipe out completely all those allegations for all purposes - And amendments carried out subsequently does not absolve the husband from being held liable for having treated the wife with cruelty - More so when such allegations continued to remain on record.
  Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Appellant v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate Respondent.
  CA Nos. 7200-7201 of 2001, D/- 16 - 4 - 2003
• Divorce - Allegation of cruelty and desertion by wife - No direct evidence of fact that wife shouted slogans against husband in his clinic - Refusal of wife not to sign document with regard to purchase of property by husband - Is not an act from which any cruelty could be inferred - Further, conduct of the husband found to be not certainly above board - Evidence disclosed that wife had to go to orphanage along with her child and that indicated that she was driven out of house of husband - Thus husband also failed to prove desertion - Concurrent finding to that effect - Dismissal of petition for divorce - No interference.
  Perminder Charan Singh etc Appellants v. Harjit Kaur Respondent.
  A. No. 3414 with 3415-3416 of 2003 etc. (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 493, 501-503 of 2002) D/- 14 - 4 - 2003
• Divorce - Cruelty - Need not be of such nature as causing reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful for petitioner to live with other party - Act committed with intention to cause suffering to other party - Is cruelty - Social status of parties is relevant consideration - Cruelty cannot be judged from solitary incident.
  G. V. N. Kameswara Rao Appellant v. G. Jabilli Respondent.
  Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1417 of 2000), D/- 10 - 1 - 2002
• Divorce - Cruelty - Mental cruelty - Petitioner-husband a double doctorate holder working in USA - Alleging that attitude of wife was not cordial and cooperative causing him mental cruelty - Wife returning back to India - Preventing entry of petitioner in house when he came to persuade her to return - Also filing criminal complaint against petitioner and his mother - Married life of parties even as per wife was not happy - Incidents throw insight in past conduct of wife - Husband held entitled to divorce.
  G. V. N. Kameswara Rao Appellant v. G. Jabilli Respondent.
  Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1417 of 2000), D/- 10 - 1 - 2002
• Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.2(2)- Applicability of Act - Members of Scheduled Tribe - Marriage between - Not governed by Act - Would be governed only by customs and usages of the Tribe.
  Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur Appellant v. Durga Charan Hansdah Respondent.
  Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) 2436 of 2000), D/- 14 - 2 - 2001
• Marriage with person having living spouse - Is null and void - Cannot be treated as voidable under S.12.
  Smt.Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Appellant v. Anantrao Shivaram Adhav and another Respondents.
  Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 1983, D/- 27 - 1 - 1988
• Divorce - The ground of mental disorder - Mere branding of spouse as schizophrenic is not sufficient - Degree of mental disorder of the spouse must be proved to be such that petitioning spouse cannot reasonably by expected to live with other.
  Ram Narain Gupta Appellant v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta Respondent.
  Civil Appeal No. 2377 of 1987 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2843 of 1987), D/- 12 - 9 - 1988
• Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S.13(1)(iv)- Virulent and incurable form of leprosy - Lepromatous leprosy is virulent and incurable.
  Swarajya Lakshmi Appellant v. Dr. G. G. Padma Rao Respondent.
  Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 1970, D/- 19 - 10 - 1973
• Adultery - Proof - Mere fact that some male relation writes improper letters to a married woman, does not necessarily prove that there was illicit relationship between writer of the letters and the married woman who received them.
  Smt. Chandra Mohini Srivastava Appellant v. Shri Avinash Prasad Srivastava and another Respondents.
  Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1966. D/- 18 - 10 - 1966

By: Tushar M. Vashi, Advocate
The author can also be reached at tmvashi1969@gmail.com