Divorce
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with divorce. Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-- [(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse The Act came into force on 18 May 1955.
(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party--
1[(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
2[(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or 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.
Explanation.--In this clause,--
(a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]
3* * * * *
(v) has 3* * * been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive; 4***
5*** *
6[Explanation.In this sub-section, 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 such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.]
7[(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground
(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 8[one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or
(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 8[one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]
(2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground,--
(i) in the case of any marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act, that the husband had married again before such commencement or that any other wife of the husband married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner:
Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or 9[bestiality; or]
10[(iii) that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), a decree or order, as the case may be, has been 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 upwards;
(iv) that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnized before she attained the age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of eighteen years.
Explanation.This clause applies whether the marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976).]
STATE AMENDMENT
Uttar Pradesh.--
Amendment of section 13 of Act XXV of 1955.--In sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,--
(a) after clause (i) the following new cause shall be inserted and shall be deemed always to have been inserted;
"(i-a) has persistently or repeatedly treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party ;or", and
(b) for clause (vii), the following clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have been substituted;
"(viii) has not resumed cohabitation after the passing of a decree for judicial separation against that party and--
(a) a period of two years has elapsed since the passing of such decree, or
(b) the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party; or".
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act XIII of 1962, s. 2]
Section 13, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 6
- s. 10 Judicial separation
- s. 13A Alternate relief in divorce proceedings
- s. 21A Power to transfer petitions in certain cases
- s. 23 Decree in proceedings
- Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act s. 79 Repeal and savings
- Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (No.10 of 1960) s. 72 Exemption of certain documents
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sanjeeta Das vs Tapan Kumar Moahnty
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Hindu marriage can be dissolved only on the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No court has jurisdiction to dissolve a Hindu marriage on the basis of the consent of the parties de hors the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Act, unless the consenting parties proceed under Section 13B of the Act. The law does not permit the purchase of a decree of divorce for consideration, with or without the consent of the other side.
On this section: Enumeration of statutory grounds for dissolution of Hindu marriage including cruelty and desertion. Court emphasized that only these grounds authorize marriage dissolution.
-
K. Srinivas vs K. Sunita
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing of even a single false criminal complaint by one spouse against the other and family members constitutes matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and entitles the injured spouse to seek dissolution of marriage, particularly where the complaint is shown to be a contrived afterthought, the accused are acquitted, and the complaint was knowingly and intentionally filed to embarrass and incarcerate the other party.
On this section: Ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage. The court held that filing of a false criminal complaint by a spouse unquestionably constitutes cruelty within the meaning of this section and entitles the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage
-
A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2004-12-02 DATE VERIFIED. CA 7763-7764/2004 (from SLP(C) 8655-8656/2003). Ruma Pal / Arijit Pasayat / C.K. Thakker. Isolates HMA 13 cruelty: mental cruelty is grave and weighty conduct making cohabitation impossible, not ordinary wear and tear; unfounded fidelity aspersions plus post-petition legal harassment can be cruelty. Irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground but the Court may dissolve in exceptional cases. Divorce granted. Map hindu-marriage-act 13 cited only. Do not pad 13B (already filled).
On this section: HMA 13 mental cruelty is grave and weighty conduct making cohabitation impossible; unfounded fidelity aspersions and post-petition legal harassment can be cruelty (A. Jayachandra).
-
Dipanwita Roy vs Ronobroto Roy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matrimonial disputes where specific allegations of infidelity and adultery are levelled under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a court may direct DNA testing to establish or refute such allegations as a distinct legal issue from the question of legitimacy of a child born during the marriage. DNA testing is permissible when it is eminently needed and the court, after balancing the interests of all parties (including the child's welfare and the right to privacy), is satisfied that such testing is necessary for a just decision. The direction for DNA testing does not necessarily trigger the full rigours of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act's conclusive presumption, as the primary issue is infidelity, not legitimacy. However, the court must preserve the liberty of parties to comply or disregard the DNA test direction, with adverse inferences drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act in case of non-compliance, thereby protecting the child's presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 to the maximum extent possible.
On this section: Adultery as a ground for dissolution of marriage; the order examines whether allegations of infidelity can be substantiated through DNA testing.
-
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar vs Sunanda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A spouse seeking divorce under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be granted relief if he or she has committed a matrimonial wrong (such as non-payment of court-ordered maintenance or continuing adultery) and is thereby taking advantage of his or her own wrong to obtain the relief. Section 23(1)(a) applies to all proceedings under the Act, including those under Section 13(1-A), and requires that the petitioner must not be taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for obtaining relief. The statutory period of one year without cohabitation creates only a right to file a petition for divorce, not an absolute right to obtain the decree. The Court has discretion to refuse relief based on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly where the petitioner has failed in matrimonial duties such as maintenance of the spouse and child.
On this section: Original grounds for divorce including adultery, cruelty, and desertion; cited to establish the historical framework of divorce grounds before 1964 amendment
-
Shweta @ Shikha Mukesh Tiwari vs Mukesh Kailash Tiwari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent without strict adherence to the statutory waiting period under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when parties have voluntarily reached a fair and comprehensive settlement agreement through mediation, have been living separately for a substantial period demonstrating irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and such exercise of power serves complete justice between parties and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Mediation-based settlements constitute valid and enforceable grounds for consolidation and disposal of all connected matrimonial and criminal proceedings across multiple courts through a unified Supreme Court order.
On this section: Divorce by mutual consent - Court exercised power under Article 142 to grant divorce without strict adherence to Section 13(B) waiting period provisions, thereby liberalizing matrimonial relief availability
-
Neelam Kumar vs Dayarani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To establish cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner must prove specific, substantiated instances of cruel conduct through reliable evidence such as testimonies, medical records, or other documentary proof. Mere allegations, oral assertions, or unpleaded matters introduced during evidence are insufficient. Further, 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot be recognized by courts as an alternative ground, as such legislative changes must be made by Parliament, not through judicial interpretation. A party who causes the breakdown of marriage through his own conduct cannot rely on that breakdown as a ground for divorce.
On this section: The provision which provides grounds for dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty by the spouse. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove cruelty as defined in this section through credible evidence.
-
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A matrimonial court cannot routinely order a DNA test of a child to prove a husband's allegations of adultery against the wife when there is no dispute regarding access during the period of conception. Furthermore, if a mother declines to subject her minor child to a DNA test in order to protect the child's identity, welfare, and privacy, no adverse inference of adultery can be drawn against her under Section 114 Illustration (h) of the Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Grounds of adultery and cruelty used by the husband to file for divorce.
-
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to another High Court. Only the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can effect such transfer. Section 23(3) of the CPC is merely a procedural provision specifying the forum for making an application and does not confer substantive power of transfer. Where courts are subordinate to different High Courts, application for transfer must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 25. The provisions of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC relating to transfer are exhaustive in nature, and no other provision or inherent power can be invoked to effect inter-High Court transfers.
On this section: Provides grounds for divorce including cruelty and desertion. The provisions of CPC regarding jurisdiction and transfer are applicable to matrimonial petitions filed under this section. The Act does not contain any provision that would exclude the application of CPC transfer provisions.
-
Jagdish Singh vs Madhuri Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a first appellate court seeks to reverse findings of fact recorded by a trial court primarily based on appreciation of oral evidence and witness credibility, it must: (1) carefully consider and apply its mind to the reasons given by the trial court for its findings; (2) bear in mind that it does not possess the advantage of having observed the witnesses and their demeanor; and (3) record cogent, detailed, and convincing reasons explaining why it is disagreeing with the trial court's findings. An appellate court cannot reverse findings of fact by merely making cryptic observations or generalized conclusions without specifically addressing the trial court's reasoning. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements vitiates the appellate decision. When a first appellate court fails to follow these principles, a higher appellate court may remit the matter to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
On this section: Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides grounds for dissolution of marriage. The husband relied on two grounds under this section: (i) desertion and (ii) cruelty. The Family Court found both grounds were satisfied and granted divorce. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that the Family Court properly applied Section 13 after considering evidence on both grounds.
-
Dinesh Singh Thakur vs Sonal Thakur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An anti-suit injunction restraining a party from prosecuting matrimonial proceedings in a foreign court will not be granted merely because the ground for divorce is not available under the personal law governing the parties in India, or because parallel proceedings exist in Indian courts, unless the party seeking the injunction demonstrates that: (1) the other party is amenable to personal jurisdiction of the Indian court, (2) grave injustice would result if the injunction is not granted, and (3) the principle of comity of courts is respected. The mere existence of concurrent jurisdiction and parallel proceedings does not constitute grave injustice warranting interference with foreign court proceedings.
On this section: Grounds for dissolution of marriage; the court noted that irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Act but is available under Florida law
-
Saraswathy vs Babu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conduct of the respondent-husband in preventing the appellant-wife from residing in the shared household, even after court orders granting her restitution of conjugal rights, constitutes continuance of domestic violence including economic abuse. Conduct of parties prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be taken into consideration while passing orders under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the PWD Act, 2005. In cases of continued domestic violence following court orders, courts are competent to grant protection orders, residence orders, maintenance, and compensation for mental torture and emotional distress under the PWD Act, 2005.
On this section: Grounds for dissolution of marriage (cruelty and desertion); Respondent filed for divorce under these grounds
-
Manisha Tyagi vs Deepak Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Division Bench of the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Single Judge regarding the non-establishment of cruelty and grant a decree of divorce when the appeal before it was filed by the wife challenging judicial separation, not by the husband seeking divorce. The reversal must be based on compelling necessity or glaring errors resulting in miscarriage of justice. Where both parties are at fault and no party has appealed for divorce, judicial separation is the appropriate remedy, and either party may seek divorce after the statutory one-year period.
On this section: Cruelty as a ground for divorce; the court examined the post-1976 amendment standard which removed the requirement to prove reasonable apprehension of harm or injury
-
Pratyaksha Pal Choudhary vs Paritosh Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute enter into a comprehensive written settlement agreement providing for division of assets, transfer of property, and mutual dissolution of marriage, and both parties express unambiguous consent in person before the Supreme Court, the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to: (1) dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent; (2) waive the statutory waiting period normally required for divorce by mutual consent; (3) make the settlement agreement binding on both parties; (4) quash and dispose of all concurrent criminal proceedings (FIR and criminal revision petitions) pending in other courts as part of comprehensive settlement if parties consent; (5) quash and dispose of all concurrent civil proceedings (applications under Domestic Violence Act and other laws) pending in other courts as part of comprehensive settlement if parties consent; and (6) consolidate multi-jurisdictional proceedings into a single Supreme Court order to provide complete finality and prevent fragmented litigation. The exercise of Article 142 powers is appropriate where matrimonial settlement includes property transfer documented and registered, parties are present in person confirming consent, and consolidation of proceedings prevents further litigation burden and serves ends of justice.
On this section: Provision relating to grounds for dissolution of marriage; Matrimonial Petition No. 2108/2024 was filed under this section by Paritosh Singh, which is now rendered infructuous by Supreme Court decree of divorce by mutual consent
-
Smt. Manjula H vs Sri. Ramachandra G C
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matrimonial transfer applications under Section 24 of CPC, the convenience of the wife, especially when she is a working mother managing the custody and education of a child, and already prosecuting prior litigation at her place of residence, must be given overriding preference.
On this section: Petitioner filed a prior divorce petition (M.C. No.46/2017) against her husband, Jayramappa.
-
Gaurav Gupta vs Pooja Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory in nature and not mandatory. The court has guided discretion to waive this period when: (1) the parties have been living separately for a substantial period (more than one year as required by Section 13-B(1)); (2) all efforts at mediation and conciliation have failed; (3) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody, and other pending issues; and (4) further waiting would only prolong their agony. In such circumstances, the court may exercise its discretion to waive the waiting period in the interest of justice.
On this section: Original provision under which contested divorce petition was filed; later converted to Section 13-B for mutual consent divorce
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… first question, whether this Court, while hearing a transfer petition, or in any other proceedings, can exercise power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, in view of the settlement between the parties, and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent dispensing with the period and the procedure prescribed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and also quash and dispose of other/connected proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., or criminal prosecution primarily under Section 498-A and other provisions of the I.P.C. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, in which cases …
-
… Pending appeal the parties have arrived at compromise. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appeal has been filed against the order of Court refusing to grant divorce. Now the parties have entered into compromise and they have agreed to file divorce petition under Section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent and they have also filed a joint compromise memo before this Court and would submit that the appeal may be disposed of based on the joint compromise memo. 3. The parties are also present before this Court. The contents of the joint compromise …
-
… In the above two cases the courts were dealing with, either an application filed during the pendency of an original petition for decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to convert the pending proceedings to a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act, as per the 'consent terms' executed between the parties, which was acted upon in part, or an original petition filed under Section 13B of the Act for a decree of divorce by mutual …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 13
What have the courts held on Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Sanjeeta Das vs Tapan Kumar Moahnty (22 Sep 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Enumeration of statutory grounds for dissolution of Hindu marriage including cruelty and desertion. Court emphasized that only these grounds authorize marriage dissolution. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Hindu Marriage Act 13, section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. People searching for it also type hma 13b and hma 13 a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sanjeeta Das vs Tapan Kumar Moahnty (22 Sep 2010).
What should I read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 18 (Maintenance of wife), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently The High Court of Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Rules, 2017 (2017).
When did Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act come into force?
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, commonly called hindu marriage divorce, and cited as Hindu Marriage Act 13, came into force on 18 May 1955, having been enacted on 18 May 1955. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 3. Definitions499 words
- 23. Decree in proceedings465 words
- 12. Voidable marriages361 words
- 2. Application of Act302 words
- 14. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage290 words
- 21A. Power to transfer petitions in certain cases287 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.