"Divorce is the golden key to the legal cage of marriage."

The term "divorce" comes from the latin word divortium which means to separate. Divorce is the legal termination of a matrimonial bond.

In Hindu Law, marriage was considered to be a sacrament and indissoluble. In early times, divorce was unknown to general Hindu law as marriage was seen as an indissoluble union of husband and wife. Manu declared that a wife can't be released by her husband either by sale or by abandonment, implying that the marital tie cannot be severed in any way
Nevertheless, after a period of time we moved from the concept of indissolubility of marriage to a fault based divorce which is to practically divorce on demand, when the concept of divorce was introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 transformed the concept of divorce and brought forth several grounds of divorce. These grounds were- Adultery, Cruelty, Desertion, Conversion, Renunciation, Unsoundness of mind, Leprosy and Presumption of death.

There are three Theories of Divorce under Hindu Law:

1. Fault or Guilt Theory
2. Divorce by Mutual Consent
3. Irretrievable breakdown of Marriage

There are some other grounds available under HMA, 1955 that can be put under the theory of Frustration according to their specified circumstances. These include Death, Renouncement of the world, etc.

Contemporary Position
The modern matrimonial law in India has been greatly influenced by and based upon, English matrimonial law.

The Divorce Act, 1969 was based on the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 of the United Kingdom, and laid down the same grounds of divorce.

However, it is common knowledge that In Modern Hindu Law, there are three theories of divorce provided and divorce can be obtained on the basis of any one of them.

There must be a ground for obtaining divorce. Divorce can't be granted merely on the ground that other party does not object to it. A ground must be established[1]

"Divorce can be granted only on the grounds laid down in the statute, neither party nor the court is free to create a new ground."

Therefore a marriage performed under Hindu Law can be dissolved only as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A wife who sought divorce as she wanted to show her status "single" on her passport to enable her to go abroad and live with her son, was denied relief as the act does not provide for any such grounds for divorce.

However it is common knowledge that the number of divorce cases are rising and there is a common perception that the law is liable for it.
Even the Supreme Court has remarked that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is breaking more homes than uniting them.

Theories of Divorce
There are three theories of Divorce:

1. Fault or Guilty Theory:
   This theory is provided in Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In this theory, fault of one party entitles other party to get divorce. This theory will be enforced when either party in the marriage has committed a matrimonial offence. The other party is supposed to be innocent otherwise there is no remedy.
   
   The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down seven fault grounds of divorce- Adultery, Cruelty, Two years' desertion, conversion to a non-hindu religion, incurable insanity or mental disorder, virulent and incurable leprosy, venereal disease in a communicable form, taking of sanyasa (renunciation of world by entering into a holy order), and presumption of death.
   
   There are four grounds on which the wife can sue alone- the husband has, since the solemnization of marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy and bestiality, cohabitation has not been resumed for one year or more after the passing of an order of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or a decree for maintenance under Section 18 HAMA, 1956.
    
2. Divorce by Mutual Consent:
   The Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Acts, 1936-88, and Divorce Acts, 1969-2001 and Muslim Law recognize Divorce by Mutual Consent.
   
   Prior to 1976, the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was the only Indian statute which has the provision of divorce by mutual consent.
   
   The provisions regarding divorce by mutual consent are given u/s 28 of the Special Marriage Act and u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The requirements for divorce by mutual consent given under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act:
   
   1. The parties have been living separately for a period of at least one year,
   2. They have not been able to live together,
   3. They have mutually agreed to have the marriage dissolved.
       
3. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage:
   It is the most controversial theory in legal jurisprudence. Hindu marriage is said to be and inseparable and indissoluble union of two persons based on love, affection and respect for each other. But this inseparable and indissoluble bond can get irreparable completely to the point where the spouses can't live peacefully with each other and there is no choice left for them other than to dissolve the marriage.

If we look at the situation of all these theories we can prominently see the long way we have come today. From the concept of indissolubility of marriage to a fault based divorce to divorce on mutual consent and to divorce on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Divorce laws are being revolutionalized to meet the needs of today's changing times and requirements of the spouses living in an unworkable relationship.

Indian Legal Provisions with Judicial Pronouncements
Fault Grounds of divorce:

Adultery:

Is a ground for divorce under all personal laws. It is a serious matrimonial relapse and it is viewed as extremely damaging to a harmonious marital relationship.

Meaning:
Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person of opposite sex. This term has not been defined in any of the Matrimonial Statutes.
Statutory Provisions
HMA, 1955- Under section 13(1)(i) and section 10(1) of the HMA, 1955, either the husband or the wife may file a petition for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation, respectively on the ground that the other party "has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse".
The same provision exists in the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

In Mallika v. Rajendran[2], it was established that the husband was guilty of adultery and desertion, the wife was granted a decree of divorce.

While under the act husband can sue for divorce only on the ground of wife's adultery. But the wife has to prove that husband is guilty of more than adultery, ex. - adultery with cruelty, adultery with desertion, adultery with incest, etc.

In Ammim v Union of India[3], this provision was held to be discriminatory. A special bench of the Kerala HC said that this provision was violative of Articles 14 and 21.
The special bench said:
As far as the ground of adultery is concerned, husband is in a much favorable position when compared to the wife since she has to prove adultery with one or other aggravating circumstances indicated in the section itself. Evidently the above discrimination is one purely based upon sex and nothing else. Such a discrimination based purely on sex will be against the mandatory provisions in Article 15 of the Constitution of India and a denial of equality before law guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

The special bench added that since cruelty and desertion are grounds of divorce available to all communities in India, but not to a Christian wife and therefore section 10 of the Divorce Act is discriminatory on the ground of religion only.

In this landmark decision, the court said that since the words "adultery coupled with" desertion etc. are severable and liable to be struck down as ultra vires of Articles 14, 15 and 21, the Christian wife may sue for divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion.

This provision has undergone change after the Amendment Act of 2001.

Essentials of Adultery:

1. Post-marriage Lapse:
   For the petitioner to have a ground of relief against the respondent, it must be a post-marriage lapse. Such conduct prior to marriage is immaterial.[4]
   
   In Elam Plakkat Mathew v. Mulam Kothrayil[5], a Christian husband sought divorce on ground of wife's adultery, as his wife had concealed the fact that she was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage. The court held that section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 provides for adultery only post marriage. This would be a case of fraud, but not adultery.
    
2. Sexual Intercourse:
   It is one of the essential elements of adultery. Adultery pre-supposes a carnal union between a man and woman. There must be an act of sexual intercourse between the parties. What would constitute sexual intercourse is in debate where different views have been given.
   
   The definition of adultery has been given in section 497 of IPC, but has no relevance in the context of Matrimonial Law.
    
3. Act must be consensual or voluntary:
   The act of sexual intercourse must be consensual. So, a man or woman forced or fraudulently induced in the situation would not be guilty. Thus, if a wife can show that she was raped[6], or a spouse can show that he or she lacked mental capacity to consent[7], it will not amount to adultery.
    
4. Parties in the act:
   The respondent must have committed sexual act with a person who is not his/her spouse. The person with whom adultery is committed may be married or unmarried.
    
5. Adulterer as Co-respondent:
   In Sikha Singh v Dina Chakrabarty[8], the wife filed a suit for divorce against her husband on the ground of adultery with the co-respondent, and also claimed damages against her. The trial court decreed the same. The co-respondent filed an application under O 1, rule of CPC, 1908 for striking off her name as co-respondent, as there was no provision in the SMA, 1954 providing for such joinder. Her further argument was that rule 10 provides for adulterer to be made co-respondent, and does not refer to adulteress.
   
   This contention was neglected as, according to the court, under the General Clauses Act, 1897, the use of masculine gender includes feminine also. It was held that she could not claim that her name should be struck off under O 1 rule 10(2) of the CPC, 1908.
    
6. Evidence and burden of proof:
   The burden of proof that the respondent committed adultery is on the petitioner who must prove it beyond reasonable doubt by wither direct or circumstantial evidence. Although it is extremely rare and difficult to produce direct evidence and eyewitnesses who have seen parties in that state. Some of the instances that can create a presumption are conduct of the parties, association, illicit affection, etc.
   
   Letters written by alleged adulterer to the wife requesting her to meet him is no indication of any adulterous conduct of the wife.[9]

Desertion:

Living together is the essence of marriage, living apart is its negation. This negation of the very essence of marriage is what the law terms as desertion. When one spouse leaves the other in a manner which is not justifiable, the deserted spouse has a remedy by way of matrimonial reliefs. Traditionally desertion has been defined as abandonment of one spouse by the other one without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the other.

Statutory Provisions
Under most of the personal laws in India, desertion is recognized as a ground for divorce and judicial separation.

Section 13(1) of the HMA, 1955 lays down the explanation that "the expression 'desertion' means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the party, and includes willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. And its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly."

Desertion is a total repudiation of marriage obligations.
Elements of Desertion:

1. The factum of separation
2. Animus deserdendi or intention to desert
3. Desertion should be without the consent of the petitioner
4. Desertion should be without any reasonable cause
5. The statutory period of two years.

In Bipinchandra Jai Singhbai Shah v. Prabhavati[10], the court held that if a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion.

Cruelty:

Under the HMA, 1995, SMA, 1954, and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, and Divorce Act, cruelty is ground for both Judicial Separation and Divorce.

Cruelty has a vast meaning and probably the most difficult one to define. What is considered cruelty today was not so construed a few decades back, and acts which may not constitute cruelty today might be so regarded after a few years.

Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety. Its categories can never be closed. It varies with time, place and person.

Statutory Provision:
Under the HMA, 1995 {section 13(1) (ia)} and SMA, 1954, {section 23 and 27(d)} it is stated that a marriage may be dissolved on the ground that the other party has "after the solemnization of marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty."

Prior to 1976, cruelty was only a ground for Judicial Separation.

• No precise definition of cruelty has so far been attempted and the courts have purposely left cruelty undefined.
• Cruelty may be subtle or brutal, physical or mental. It may be words, gestures or mere silence.[11]

In Russel v Russel[12], Cruelty is defined as:
Cruelty is a conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life or health, bodily or mental, gives rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger.

• Physical Cruelty:
  Acts of physical violence on the part of one spouse against the other resulting in injury to the body, limb or health causing a reasonable apprehension thereof have been traditionally considered to amount to cruelty.
  
  Though it will differ from case to case that what acts will amount to cruelty, depending upon the gravity of acts and susceptibility or sensibility of the petitioner.
  
  In Kaushalya v Wisakhiram[13], husband ill-treated the wife, beat her so much that she had to go to the police station to lodge a complaint against her husband. The court held, this would constitute to cruelty, even though injuries might not be so serious as to require medical treatment.
   
• Mental Cruelty:
  Mental Cruelty is the largest and important aspect of cruelty in the modern matrimonial law. Although intention is no longer an essential ingredient of cruelty but the mental state of the respondent can't be ignored.
  
  In the landmark case of Dastane v Dastane[14], Mrs. Dastane used to make all sorts of vile, filthy and false allegation, not only against the husband but against his whole family. She to abuse him and his family in the vilest possible terms. She did many sickening pranks on her husband. She was somewhat mentally unbalanced. But the husband suffered. This was a clear case of mental cruelty.

Some illustrative cases of what will amount to cruelty:
Denial of medical treatment to an ailing wife and then turning her out of the matrimonial home is the worst type of cruelty.[15]

Wife not caring to see her seriously injured husband lying in hospital is equally a worst case of cruelty.[16]

Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect or indifference, indulging in love affairs with another woman and then promising her to marry will amount to cruelty.[17]

False accusations of adultery and unchastity, where a husband constantly called his wife 'prostitute'[18]. The court said, "Remembering the families spouses come from, respectable and educated, the sort of cruelty we see here is physical violence. It shakes foundations of the conjugal life."

The demand of dowry from the wife or her parents and relations amounts to cruelty.[19]

Where husband was against having a child and wife was constrained to take precautions against pregnancy, was held to be cruelty.[20]
Threat to commit suicide will amount to cruelty.[21]

Verbal abuses and insults using filthy and abusive language will amount to cruelty.[22]

Insanity:
Mental Deficiency hampers in the making of intelligible choices that are required in a marriage for it to be consensual. If a person is incapable of making such choices it should therefore constitute a ground for annulment of the marriage. Various forms and degrees of mental abnormalities can be found in matrimonial laws in India. At present, under the HMA, the SMA, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, insanity as a ground is worded identically.

Insanity has not been qualified by words like "incurable" or "continuous".
The statutory phraseology adopted to indicate abnormality in general, or various species thereof, varies such as "insanity", "idiocy", "lunacy", "unsoundness of mind", "mental disorder", "psychopathic disorder", "schizophrenia", etc.

By the amendment of 1976, the clause has been modified in the HMA and SMA

Case Law:
Mental Disorder "Schizophrenia" should be of such quality that the petitioner is not reasonably expected to live with the respondent.[23]

Leprosy

Leprosy is a ground for Divorce and Judicial Separation under most of the matrimonial laws of the Indian Communities.

Statutory Provisions:
Under the HMA, the ground runs: respondent "has been suffering from virulent and incurable form of leprosy"[24]
Under the SMA, the ground is worded differently. It runs: the respondent "has been suffering from leprosy, the disease not having been contracted from the petitioner."

At present, leprosy in its early stages is curable. It seems that some period must elapse before leprosy becomes incurable. What time should elapse will vary from case to case depending upon the type of leprosy with which the respondent is suffering. Malignant and venomous leprosy are virulent forms of leprosy. A mild form of leprosy which is curable is not virulent.

Case Laws:
Lepromatous leprosy, which is malignant and contagious and in prognosis is usually grave, is virulent leprosy.[25]
Sometimes its spread can be arrested by a long period of treatment but relapse are frequent.[26]

Venereal Disease:

Venereal disease is a ground for divorce and judicial separation under most of the matrimonial laws in India.

Statutory Provisions:
Under the HMA and the SMA, the ground is identical.
The ground runs: the respondent "has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form."

Case Law:
In Mr. X v. Hospital Z, divorce was granted to wife when husband was discovered to be HIV positive. It was observed by the court that since venereal disease is a ground for divorce, it implies that a person suffering from venereal disease prior to marriage must be injuncted from entering into marriage.[27]
It is immaterial that the disease is curable or was contracted innocently. The duration of the disease is not mentioned in any of these statutes. It may be of any duration.

Conversion

Conversion or apostasy is a ground for divorce and judicial separation under some of the Indian Personal laws, though it is not a ground under the SMA which stipulates for inter-religious marriages.

A person is free to profess any faith or relinquish his faith of birth and convert to another religion. But it is not the case in matrimonial laws. Conversion of a spouse gives to the non-converted spouse a ground for matrimonial relief.

Statutory Provisions:
Under the HMA, the requirements are: respondent (i) has ceased to be a Hindu, and (ii) has converted to another religion.

A hindu does not cease to be hindu on his declaration that he has no faith. He may have no faith in it, he may not profess it, he may lead a very unorthodox life so much as to eat beef and decry all hindu gods and goddesses, he will not cease to be a Hindu.[28]

It is also not necessary that after the conversion the respondent must practice his new faith.

Legal effects on Marriage:

• Automatic dissolution of the marriage
• A ground for divorce at the instance of the non-convert
• A ground for divorce at the instance of the convert.

Presumption Of Death
Dissolution of marriage by death is accepted in all systems of law. But what will be the position in cases, where there is no positive proof that death has occurred.

Statutory Provisions:
Under the HMA, the ground runs: respondent "has not been heard of being as alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive."

Applying the presumption of death, no spouse can presume himself as widower or widow and remarry. If he does so and the missing spouse reappears, he would be guilty of bigamy and the second marriage will be void.

Renunciation Of World
Renunciation of world is a ground for divorce only under Hindu Law.

Statutory Provisions:
Section 32(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act lays down: respondent "has renounced the world by entering into any religious order."

According to religious beliefs, every Hindu is required to enter into the Sanyasa Ashrama. Since this is the last ashrama entered into the old age, it amounts to civil death.

The requirements of this ground are:

• Renunciation of the world by the respondent
• Entering into a holy order by him

What won't fall under this clause:

• When a person doesn't take any interest in worldly affairs
• When a person retires to a single room
• Withdraws from cohabitation
• Takes a vow of celibacy
• Becomes a mauni

Such a spouse won't be covered in this clause. BUT, it may amount to cruelty or desertion.

Unless the second condition is also fulfilled, the other spouse cannot sue for divorce or judicial separation.

Becoming chela of a guru does not by itself mean entering into a holy order.[29]

Wife's Fault Grounds Of Divorce

1. Rape, Sodomy And Bestiality:
   Rape, Sodomy and Bestiality are special grounds on which the wife alone can sue for divorce under the HMA, SMA, and the Divorce Act.
   
   Statutory Provisions:
   The grounds under the HMA and the SMA runs thus: "that the husband, since the solemnization of marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy and bestiality."
   
   • Rape is a criminal offence u/s 375 of IPC.
   • Sodomy and Bestiality are listed as unnatural offences u/s 377 of IPC.
   If a man commits sodomy on his own wife without her consent, he is guilty of the offence, and wife may sue for divorce.[30]
    
2. NON-RESUMPTION OF COHABITATION AFTER A DECREE OR ORDER OF MAINTENANCE-
   This a new ground added to the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. The ground runs as under:
   A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground-
   That in a suit u/s 18 of the HAMA, 1956 or in a proceeding u/s 126 of CrPC, 1973, a decree or order, as the case may be, has passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upward.
   
   It is evident that this ground has been enacted as a fault ground.
    

GREY AREA occurring in the research:-
Will sexual intercourse between a married person and a married/unmarried person of the same sex amount to adultery?

Role of Judiciary
It is very obvious that judiciary plays an important role in making all the laws regarding matrimonial statutes. Judiciary took us from no solution for marital issues to many satisfactory resolutions. But the most important role that is played by judiciary is to analyze both of the parties seeking the divorce. Spouses go to courts to obtain divorce on various reasons, but are those various reasons enough or fair or lawful, it is decided by the Court.

Courts analyze if the parties have valid enough reason to get a decree of divorce. It is analyzed if the parties are really subjected to any of the grounds that are provided in matrimonial statutes. Or, if the parties are only seeking divorce because of some petty issues that do not really need to be decided as a reason to obtain divorce. Sometimes, the parties are given other options such as Judicial Separation or Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

The court decides whether divorce should be provided to the parties or not. It is very common nowadays that the number of divorce cases is rising, and it is also accepted that the law is responsible for it. Even the Supreme Court has remarked that the Hindu Marriage Act is breaking more homes than uniting them.

Justices ARIJIT PASAYAT and GS SINGHVI remarked. "When a marriage takes place, the respective spouses keep a divorce petition ready, anticipating breakdown."
It is not only about the spouses, it is also about their children and their family. The spouses are not the only one being separated from each other but their children and their family too are being separated. Sometimes the spouses seek divorce only under the consequences of their "ego", or "petty faults".

A man/woman cannot just seek divorce because the other spouse slept early than them. There are designated grounds for divorce which the parties need to be explained when the parties seek for divorce. The judiciary is responsible for that, for explaining them the consequences, for explaining them the maintenance provisions, and such other things. Divorce is not a panacea for all matrimonial problems and should be considered as a last resort or an emergency exit from an unbearable conjugal relationship, as a lesser necessary evil. That's why laws like Judicial Separation and Restitution of Conjugal Rights are provided by courts to the divorce seeking parties.

Sometimes the court grants Judicial Separation on the circumstances of the case instead of Divorce since the number of divorce cases are increasing, and with deep concern over its impact on the children, the family and the society at large.

Comparison Between Hindu Law And Muslim Law
Unlike Hindu Marriage, Muslim Marriage is not a sacrament but a contract, solemnized generally with the recitation of the certain verses from the "Quran".

• Muslim marriage is a polygamous marriage limited to four wives.
  Just like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 recognizes divorce on fault grounds.
  Muslim wife under the old Muslim Law had no right of divorce. In 1939, legislature interceded and Muslim wife was given right to seek judicial divorce by suit on certain grounds.
• Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was introduced a bit later than the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939.
   

Under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, nine grounds for divorce are recognized on which wife can sue for divorce:

1. Unheard absence of husband for four years,
2. Neglect or failure to provide maintenance by the husband for a period of two years,
3. Seven years' sentence of imprisonment,
4. Failure of the husband to perform matrimonial obligations for three years,
5. Impotency of the husband,
6. Two years' leprosy or virulent venereal disease,
7. Repudiation of marriage by the wife,
8. Cruelty of the husband, and
9. Any other ground recognized under Muslim Law

Unlike Hindu Law, Muslim Law has provided the concept of Divorce without the intervention of courts, it is called Unilateral Divorce. It is a remarkable feature of Muslim Law of divorce that in most cases no judicial or non-judicial authority is needed to effect dissolution of marriage.

Non-judicial divorce may be classifies as under:

1. Unilateral divorce by husband. It is called Talak. Talak may take the following forms:
   
   1. Express talak
   2. Implied or contingent talak
   3. Delegated divorce, talak-i-tafweez
   4. Divorce by mutual consent:
      
      1. Khul, and
      2. Mubarat

The concept of Judicial Separation doesn't exist in Muslim divorce law.

Comparison Between India And England
In England before 1857, a marriage could be dissolved only by an Act of Parliament and only very rich could afford this luxury. After a considerable pressure, divorce was recognized under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, but only on one ground, i.e. adultery. In early English Law, divorce was regarded as a mode of punishing the guilty spouse who had rendered himself or herself unworthy of consortium. In England, the Matrimonial Causes act, 1857 for the first time permitted divorce by judicial process.

In 1973, the MCA, 1857 was passed which is a consolidating statute and retains breakdown of marriage, as a basic ground of divorce.

The grounds are as follows:

1. Adultery,
2. Unreasonable behavior such that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent,
3. Desertion,
4. Two years' separation with the consent of other party, and
5. Five years living apart (without consent).

The English Law has abandoned the offence or guilty theory of Law.

End-Notes:
[1] Edwardraj v Sillakathi, AIR 1994
[2] Mallika v Rajendran AIR 1995
[3] Ammim v Union of India
[4] Arokia Raj Morais v. Babita Maria
[5] Elam Plakkat Mathew v Mulam Kothrayil
[6] Redpath v Redpath 1950
[7] Lang v Lang
[8] Sikha Singh v Dina Chakrabarty
[9] Chander Prakash v Sudesh Kumari
[10] Bipinchandra Jai Singhbai Shah v Prabhavati
[11] Dastane v Dastane, AIR 1975
[12] Russel v Russel
[13] Kaushalya v Wisakhiram
[14] Dastane v Dastane
[15] Balbir v Ghur Das
[16] Rajendra Singh v Tarawati
[17] Lalita v Radha
[18] Saptmi v Jagdish
[19] Sobha v Madhukar
[20] Stanley Hedger v Florence
[21] Dastane v Dastane
[22] Gangadharan v Madhukar
[23] Joginder v Sutji
[24] Section 13(i)(iv)
[25] Annapurna v Nabakishore
[26] Sivararaya v Padma Rao
[27] Mr. X v Hospital Z
[28] Rani Bhagwan v J.C. Bose
[29] Sitaldas v Sani Ram
[30] Bamption v Bamption