According to R.N. Sharma, Hindu marriage is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound in a permanent relationship for the physical, social and spiritual purposes of dharma, procreation and sexual pleasure. Hindu marriage is an ancient tradition, prevailing from the Vedic period to modern times.

The Hindus conceived marriage as a holy and sacramental tie and not a contractual union. Whilst Manu did not recognise the concept of divorce, Kautilya's Arthashastra permitted divorce by mutual consent in a case of illegitimate marriage. It was by the introduction of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA'), the legal provisions for the dissolution of a Hindu marriage were laid down.

Under Section 13 of the HMA, any marriage solemnised, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the following grounds:

1. Voluntary Sexual Intercourse - Section 13(1)(I)

   Under Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA, a decree of divorce may be sought on the ground that a party/spouse had voluntary sexual intercourse with any other person other than his/her spouse during the subsistence of the marriage. As defined by the Black's Law Dictionary, adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with a person other than the offender's husband or wife.
   
   Although adultery as a criminal offence has been decriminalised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but remains a valid ground for divorce, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Joseph Shine v. Union of India held that:
   'Though adultery may be an act committed in private by two consenting adults, it is nevertheless not a victim-less crime. It violates the sanctity of marriage, and the right of a spouse to marital fidelity of his/her partner. It impacts society as it breaks the fundamental unit of the family, causing injury not only to the spouses of the adulteror and the adulteress, it impacts the growth and well-being of the children, the family, and society in general, and therefore must be subject to penal consequences.' [1]
   
   Any spouse may file a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery before a competent court of law; the burden of proof would always lie with the person who alleges it. To prove adultery, one would be required to implead and specify the adulterer as a respondent[2], even if no relief is claimed against him/her[3], failing which the divorce petition may not be maintainable[4].
   
   However, in situations when specifying or impleading the adulterer may not be possible at all, a court depending upon the facts and circumstances, may make such exceptions[5]. Mere suspicion of adultery would not be held as a valid ground for adultery[6]. The direct evidence of proof of adultery is rare, and it is therefore accepted as a rule that it may be proved by circumstantial evidence and the circumstances ought to be such that it would lead the guarded discretion of a reasonable and prudent man to a conclusion of adultery[7].
   
   Some instances which may construe as adultery are:
   1. when a husband is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his wife is absenting herself from their house for a long time, and is seen in the company of a stranger without any reasonable explanation or that she has given a false explanation for her having been seen in the company of that stranger at different places or in a room, would give rise to a reasonable inference that she has contacted illicit connection with that man and has been living in adultery[8],
   2. Admission of adultery by wife or husband[9],
   3. testimony of disinterested witnesses to the extent that they had seen husband or the wife committing adultery, and
   4. when a child is born beyond the period of twelve months after the cessation of marital consortium between the spouses[10], etc.
   In a case where a husband can prove continuous and repeated acts of adultery and cohabit in adultery, he may not be liable to provide maintenance to his wife under Section 125 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956.[11] The acts of adultery, however, must be continuous and not a single or occasional lapse, even at the time of the divorce petition, and not a matter of the past.[12]
   
   If a husband alleges that a child was born out of adultery and challenges the legitimacy of the child, he is required to rebut the presumption of legitimacy under the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 states that any person born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his marriage and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remained unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man unless it can be shown that the parties had no access to each other any time when he could have begotten.[13] Therefore, to presume that a child was born out of adultery at all, the husband must also prove that he had no access to his wife, and it was only during that period that the child was born.[14]
   
   Once the validity of the marriage is proved, then there shall be a strong presumption regarding the legitimacy of the children born out of that wedlock unless that presumption is rebutted by strong, clear, and satisfying evidence.[15] Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is based on the legal maxim pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant i.e. he is the father whom the marriage indicates and would apply in cases when a husband can prove that he had no access to sexual intercourse with the woman and only then, the man cannot be said to be the father.[16]
   
   A husband may otherwise, file an application before the court requesting assistance in conducting a deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') test of the child and establish his assertion of adultery, whom he claims he is not the father of.[17]
   
   The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal summarised the law on DNA testing as:
   
   1. The Courts cannot order blood tests as a matter of course,
   2. Wherever applications are made for such prayers to have a roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained,
   3. There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act,
   4. The court must carefully examine as to what be the consequence of ordering blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman, and
   5. No one can be compelled to give a sample of blood for analysis.[18]
   
   In a recent case, the husband without obtaining any kind of order from the court or consent from the wife, carried out a DNA test on their child and filed for a divorce along with the DNA report, which in fact supported his allegations of adultery, before the court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi however, held that such DNA tests were not conducted as per law, and accordingly, the DNA test report was also held to be invalid in the eyes of law.[19]
   
   It is important to note that one cannot be forced to undergo a test, and at most in case of such a refusal, adverse inference may be withdrawn.[20] In another recent case, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed a DNA test to be carried out as requested by the husband however, also imposed a condition that in case it is found that the husband was the father, the husband would pay compensation INR 30,00,000 (Indian Rupees Thirty Lacs) to the wife, in addition to the usual maintenance and other costs as the husband may be directed to pay towards the wife and the child.[21]
    

2. Cruelty - Section 13 (1)(Ia)

   Cruelty is another ground for divorce as laid out under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla has held that cruelty could be mental or physical, direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 'the expression 'cruelty' has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour.
   
   It is always dependent upon on the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments, and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status.' [22]
   
   A particular act whether it may constitute as cruelty or not, would broadly depend upon two elements i.e. the act complained of i.e. the nature of the cruel treatment, and the nature of its effect on the aggrieved spouse.[23] The intent is not a necessary element for an act to be determined cruelty, but by an ordinary sense in human affairs, the act or the conduct complained of, could itself be regarded as cruelty.[24]
   
   Physical Cruelty Versus Mental Cruelty
   The acts of cruelty involving physical assaults, harm or injury, may be obvious, however, when mental cruelty is alleged, the court must assess the facts and circumstances which may vary from case to case. There may be circumstances where mental cruelty could be construed as more painful than physical cruelty, as the former may continue to hurt all along and any amount of therapy/ healing may not wipe out the scars lifelong.[25]
   
   Even a single act of violence may be of such grievous and inexcusable nature that it satisfies the test of cruelty. However, isolated acts of assaults which may be committed during a spur moment, and on account of real or fancied provocation, may not necessarily amount to cruel treatment.[26]
   
   Some of the examples amounting to mental cruelty would include, a wife falsely alleging that the husband was a lunatic and that there was a streak of insanity running in his family[27] or falsely accusing the husband that he tried to force her into prostitution[28], a wife abusing her mother-in-law, and insulting her husband in front of his colleagues[29]. Likewise, if a husband frequently visits his wife's office and humiliates her, calling her a prostitute in front of her colleagues, the same would also amount to cruelty.[30]
   
   The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh held that:
   Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have an adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.[31]
   
   In a recent case, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that the acts of the wife in suspecting her husband's character and making false allegations of him having extramarital affairs in the presence of his colleagues amounted to cruelty.[32] On the other hand, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that the constant and repeated taunts of the husband in comparing his wife with other women and complaining that the wife is not of his expectation, would as well amount to mental cruelty.[33]
   
   Some of the other examples of cruelty would include false allegations of physical violence by the spouse's family[34], unchastity or casting aspersions on the wife's character[35], wife filing false proceedings against the husband causing humiliation and lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers[36]. The husband suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, due to which he was not able to have a sexual relationship with his wife, was construed as cruelty by the Hon'ble Apex Court.[37]
   
   It is a settled law that if either of the parties to a marriage being in a healthy physical capacity refuses to have sexual intercourse with another, the same would amount to cruelty entitling the other party to a decree for dissolution of marriage. It would not make any difference in law whether denial of sexual intercourse is the result of the sexual weakness of the husband disabling him from having a sexual union with the wife, or it is because of any wilful refusal by the husband.[38] In a recent judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras, it was held that refusal to have sexual intercourse even on account of physical incapacity, would be construed as cruelty.[39]
   
   The Hon'ble divisional bench of the High Court of Delhi granted a decree for dissolution of marriage to the husband on the ground that the wife caused mental cruelty to her husband and his family, by not only refusing to consummate their marriage during the marriage but by also falsely implicating her husband and his family.[40]
   
   The question whether rape of a wife by her husband (i.e. marital rape), is a criminal offence or not, is yet to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered a split verdict on the same issue[41]. Though the divorce laws prevailing in India, have been time to time amended while protecting the rights of women, yet there are several situations where women are expected to act or conduct themselves within the contours set out by the old and continuing traditions and norms of the society.
   
   The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra v. K. Meena has held that:
   A wife demanding her husband to leave his parents and live separately has also been held as mental cruelty[42], this has also been upheld in a recent case by the High Court of Chhattisgarh[43].
    

3. Desertion - Section 13 (1)(Ib)

   The expression 'desertion' under Section 13 of the HMA is explained as the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause, and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. A spouse living apart by mutual agreement, consent, or on account of employment, or exigencies of business, would not amount to desertion.
   
   The essential ingredients for desertion are - the factum of separation as well as the intention of permanent cohabitation, which must both exist for a continuous period of two years. Desertion must be a voluntary action/ conduct by the deserted spouse, and without any reasonable cause.
   
   A spouse living separately on account of violence, cruelty[44], being ill-treated by a husband or his family[45], business or occupation[46], owing to medical conditions/ treatments[47], would not constitute as desertion. Further, a husband having illicit relations with another woman; impelling his wife to live separately would also not amount to desertion.[48] In the case of Vinay Kumar v. Nirmala, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi granted the decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against his wife, who voluntarily left her matrimonial house on account of being unable to adjust with her husband and in-laws, and never returned.[49]
   
   In the matter of Smt.Prabhavati v. K. Somashankar, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that:
   The standard of proof required for granting of divorce on the ground of desertion, should not be merely on the preponderance of probabilities, but must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.[50] In a case where the husband forcibly, turns his wife out of the matrimonial house because of which she is constrained to live separately, the husband would be guilty of constructive desertion.
   
   The desertion test is not about which spouse left the matrimonial home first. Constructive desertion is the expression used to show that the spouse who compels the other to leave him or her, is guilty of desertion, even though the party going away from the matrimonial home is the other party.[51] Therefore, if a spouse by his/her words or conduct, compels the other spouse to leave the marital home, the former would be guilty of constructive desertion.[52]
    

4. Conversion - Section 13(1)(Ii)

   A spouse has a right to seek divorce under Section 13(1)(ii) of HMA, if the other spouse voluntarily converts himself/herself to any other religion other than Hindu.[53] In the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that conversion or apostasy would not automatically dissolve a marriage already solemnized but would only provide as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.[54]
   
   Only the non-converted spouse would be entitled to seek divorce under Section 13(1)(ii) of the HMA, however, the converted spouse would not be disentitled to seek divorce on other grounds under the HMA merely on the ground of being converted to any other religion.[55] The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that a Hindu wife would be entitled to live separately from her husband if the husband has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to any other relation, and the same would not disentitle the wife to claim maintenance.[56]
    

5. Incurable Unsound Mind Or Mental Disorder - Section 13(1)(Iii)

   One of the essential conditions for the solemnization of a marriage under Hindu laws is that neither party must be incapable of giving valid consent or suffering from a mental disorder of such a kind[57], failing which the marriage would be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity[58].
   
   Under Section 13(1)(iii) of the HMA, a spouse may seek for dissolution of marriage, pursuant to marriage from their spouse suffering from incurable unsound mind or mental disorder. A spouse seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of HMA must establish that their husband/ wife is of unsound mind, the same is incurable and that the mental disorder is to the extent that the spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live their husband/wife.
   
   In the case of Kollam Padma Latha vs Kollam Chandra Shekhar, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
   Schizophrenia is not of such a serious nature and particularly when it is treatable, it cannot be a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of HMA. A wife suffering from a slight mental disorder, not of such kind, to the extent that the husband could not live with her, was rejected as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the HMA.[59]
   
   Instances like occasional bouts of laughter[60], not wearing mangalsutra or applying bindis,[61] short temper or erratic behaviour cannot be termed as a mental disorder. A wife occasionally locking herself in the bathroom, stating that she wants to die, setting clothes on fire, creating a scene on roads, was construed as hazardous behaviour by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and had accordingly granted the decree for dissolution in favour of the husband[62].
   
   In order to obtain a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the HMA, one must be able to prove that no reasonable person would be able to live with his/her spouse owing to their mental sickness.[63]
    

6. Venereal Disease - Section 13(1)(V)

   A marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section (1)(v) of HMA, on the ground that the spouse is suffering from a venereal disease which may be in communicable disease. The term 'venereal disease' is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as a contagious disease (such as gonorrhoea or syphilis) that is typically acquired in sexual intercourse. Human Immunodeficiency Virus ('HIV') which leads to Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ('AIDS') has been held as a valid ground under Section (1)(v) of the HMA by various courts in India.[64]
    

7. Renounced The World By Entering Any Religious Order - Section 13(1)(Vi)

   A wife/husband would be entitled to seek divorce from their spouse, who voluntarily renounces himself/herself from the world by entering into any religious order (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains). The Black's Law Dictionary explains the expression "renounce" to mean "to give up or abandon formally (a right or interest); to disclaim (renounce an inheritance), to refuse to follow or obey; to decline to recognize or observe (renounce one's allegiance)". [65]
   
   The expression "renounce" as defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English is "consent formally to abandon; surrender; give up ( a claim, right, possession, etc); repudiate; refuse to recognize any longer (renouncing their father's authority); a decline further association or disclaim relationship with (renounced my former friends); withdraw from; discontinue; forsake; refuse or resign a right or position esp., as an heir or trustee".
   
   It is relevant to mention that necessary ceremony and procedure towards renunciation of the world must have taken place[66], and merely just declaring to have become sanyasi or that person starts wearing clothes[67] ordinarily used by sanyasis would not amount to renunciation from the world.
    

8. Disappearance For Seven Years Or More - Section 13(1)(Vii)

   A person may seek dissolution of divorce under Section 13(1)(vii) of HMA, on the ground that his/her spouse has been unheard of being alive for a period of seven years or more by the persons who naturally heard of him or her. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that the question whether a person is alive, or dead must be proved that he has not been heard of, for seven years or more, by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive.
   
   The burden of proving that he is alive would be shifted to the person who affirms it. Once the person has not been heard of being alive for a period of seven years or more, the presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 would raise that he is dead at the time the question was raised.
    

9. Non-Resumption Of Cohabitation Or Restitution - Section 13(1A)
   

   Section 13(1A) of HMA entitles either party to a marriage to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground:
   
   1. No resumption of cohabitation has taken place between the spouses for a period of one year or more from the date after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties[68], and
   2. That no restitution of conjugal rights has taken place between the spouses for a period of one year or more from the date after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties[69]. Section 13(1A) of HMA was introduced by way of an amendment of 1964, prior to which only the spouse who had obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was permitted to apply for a decree of divorce and not the spouse against whom the decree was passed.
      
      Accordingly, now either party to the marriage can present a petition for dissolution of marriage if there had been non-compliance of the decree of judicial separation or the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

End-Notes:

1. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676
2. Jaideep Shah v. Rashmi Shah alias Miss Rashmi Vyas, 2011 (2) MPLJ 680; Mirapala Venkata Ramana v. Mirapala Peddi Raju, AIR 2000 AP 328.
3. Lt. Col. Rajiv Shankar v. Soumya Nair & Ors., AIR 2014 Kant 167.
4. Smt. Radhika @ M. Lavanya v. M. Lokender, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3863 of 2003, High Court of Andhra Pradesh decided on 26 March 2014.
5. Anusha Kumari v. Rohan, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5689 of 2015, High Court of Patna decided on 5 December 2017.
6. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Anju Rahe, AIR 2010 (NOC) 442 (P&H).
7. Rajendra Agrawal v. Smt. Sharda Devi, AIR 1993 MP 142.
8. Thimmappa Dasappa v. Thimmavva Kom Thimmappa, AIR 1972 Kant. 234
9. Dr. Saroj Kumar Sen v. Dr. Kalyan Kanta Ray, AIR 1980 Cal 374
10. Dr. H.T. Vira Reddi v. Kistamma, AIR 1969 Mad 235
11. Pradeep Kumar v. Deepika Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1035
12. Amit Kumar Yadav v. Suman Devi & Ors. CRR(F) No. 384 of 2021(O&M), High Court of Punjab & Haryana, decided on 19 September 2022. See also: Sandha v. Narayanan, 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 64; Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Deepika Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1035, High Court of Delhi on 13 April 2022.
13. Arindam Saha v. Dipanwita Thakur, MAT. Appl.(F.C.) 220/2019, High Court of Delhi, decided on 03 June 2022
14. Imarta Devi v. Deep Chand, I (2000) DMC 132; Janama v. Kuttappa Panicker, 1959 Cri LJ 1328
15. Sham Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 3115
16. Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, 2001 (5) SCC 311.
17. Dipwanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, (2015) 1 SCC 365
18. 1993 AIR 2295, 1993 SCR (3) 917
19. Kavita Devi v. Anil Kumar MAT. APP. 47/2014, date of decision: 24 August 2016
20. Maya Ram v. Smt. Kamla Devi, AIR 2008 HP 43
21. Priyanka Janardhan Patil v. Janardhan Raghunath Patil, SLP (C) No(s). 5554 of 2020, decided on 04 April 2022
22. AIR 2012 SC 2586
23. Sukumar Mukherjee v. Tripti Mukherjee, AIR 1992 Pat 32
24. Trimbak Narayan Bhagwat v. Kumudini Bhagwat, AIR 1967 Bom 80; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121
25. Devanti Devi v. Rupan Tanty, AIR 2005 Jhar 49, Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, 2002 (5) SCC 706
26. Ajay Lavania v. Smt. Shobhna Dubey, 2011 SCC OnLine All 1179. See also: Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301; Nirmla v. Govind FAO(M) no. 77 of 2016, P&H High Court decided on 09 September 2019
27. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710
28. Roshi w/o Sher Singh v. Sher Singh, 2005 (1) HLR 93
29. Akhilesh Kumar Bisht v. Sunita Kumari, 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 220 (Uttarakhand) (DB).
30. Kala Kumari v. Ram Bhavan Anand, AIR 2004 All 54
31. 2007 (4) SCC 511; see also: Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742.
32. C. Sivakumar v. A. Srividhya, CMA No. 3249 of 2017 - High Court of Madras, pronounced on 05 July 2022.
33. MAT Appeal No. 513 of 2021- High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam decided on 04 August 2022
34. Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh v. Smt. Sheela Singh, FAM No. 94 of 2013 - Chhattisgarh High Court decided on 13 July 2022. See also: Satyawati @ Savitri v. Chand Prakash, 2005 (1) HLR 312
35. Rup Jyoti Das v. Beron Saikia, AIR 2006 Gau 125,
36. Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, AIR 2017 SC 2138
37. Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Saxena, AIR 2006 SC 1662
38. Rita Nijhawan v. Balakishan Nijhawan, AIR 1973 Delhi 200
39. A.C. Sudhakar v. Vinaya, C.M.A. no. 500 of 2022 - Madras High Court decided on 10 March 2022.
40. Anu Seth v. Sunil Seth, MAT. App. (F.C.) 68/2015 - Delhi High Court decided on 30 September 2016.
41. RIT Foundation v. The Union of India, W.P. (C) 284/2015- High Court of Delhi decided on 11 May 2022
42. Narendra v. K. Meena, Civil Appeal No. 3253 of 2008 - Supreme Court of India on 06 October 2016, see also: Ramesh Jangdid v. Sunita, AIR 2007 Raj 160; Dhrubajyoti Bharadwaj v. Smt. Meenkashi Bharadwaj, MAT. Appl. 48/2019 - Gauhati High Court on 14 December 2021.
43. Shailendra Kumar Chandra v. Smt. Bharti Chandra, First Appeal (M) No. 124/2017 - Chhattisgarh High Court on 27 April 2022.
44. Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1258/2019 - High Court of Rajasthan decided on 23 May 2022
45. Rajesh v. Rukmani AIR 2000 MP 227
46. Shanti v. Ramesh, LJ 1969 All 67; Sanghamitra Singh v. Kailash Chandra Singh, AIR 2001 Ori 151
47. Lakkaraju Pradma Pria vs Lakkaraju Shyam Prasad, AIR 2009 AP 54
48. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi, AIR 2001 SC 1709
49. AIR 1987 Del 79
50. AIR 2002 Kant. 431
51. A. Bhagavathi Ammal & Ors. v. Sethu, AIR 1987 Mad 224
52. V. Geetha v. O.K. Radhakrishnan, MAT. Appeal no. 386 of 2006 - High Court of Kerala decided on 19 March 2008
53. Madanam Seetha Ramulu v. Madanam Vimala, AIR 2014 NOC 412 (A.P.)
54. AIR 2000 SC 1650
55. Vilayat Raj v. Smt. Sunila, AIR 1983 Delhi 351
56. Suresh babu v. Leela, 2006 (3) KLT 891
57. Section 5(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955
58. Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955
59. Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra AIR 1982 Cal 138
60. A.S. Satyanandan v. A.S. Usharani, 1981 (1) HLR 295 (AP)
61. Devi Sharma v. Chander Mohan Sharma, AIR 2003 P&H 327
62. Kamalshri @ Priya Jain v. Pramod Kumar, I (2004) DMC 789 (MP
63. Vandana v. Suresh Charan AIR 2005 Raj 193
64. Sunil Lakhotia v. Pratima AIR 1975 MP 174
65. Eight Edition.
66. Baldeo Prasad v. Arya Priti Nidhi Sabha, AIR 1930 All 643. See also: Satyanarayana Avadhani v. Hindu Religious Endowment Board AIR 1957 AP 824
67. Avasarala Kondala Row v. Ishwara Sanyasi, 33 MLJ 63
68. Section 13(1A)(i) of HMA
69. Section 13 (1A)(ii) of HMA

The content of this Article is intended to provide general information about the subject matter and should not be construed as legal advice in any manner. Please feel free to contact the author for any additional information/ advice.

Written By: Kunal Kumar, Advocate
Web: www.griffinlawchambers.com
Email: [email protected], Ph no: +91-9811420230

Also Read:

• Divorce under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Divorce as per Section 13 of HMA,1955
• Marriage And Dissolution Of Marriage Under Family Law