Marriage Cannot Be Dissolved On Vague Allegations Of Mental Illness Without Expert Medical Evidence: Jharkhand High Court

"... merely alleging that a wife suffers from health problems cannot, in law, constitute a ground for divorce." Jharkhand High Court held that a decree of divorce cannot be granted on the grounds of mental disorder or cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the absence of clinching medical evidence and expert testimony.

A division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava dismissed an appeal filed by a government employee husband, ruling that vague and omnibus allegations by a spouse cannot override the legal threshold required to dissolve a marriage.

The appellant-husband had approached the family court seeking dissolution of his marriage solemnized on June 22, 2017, alleging that his wife suffered from a chronic and incurable mental disorder from childhood, which was fraudulently suppressed by her parents. He further contended that the marriage was never consummated due to her abnormal behaviour and that he was subjected to mental cruelty. The respondent-wife contested the suit by filing a written statement, denying all allegations of mental illness and countering that she was subjected to severe physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws over demands for a four-wheeler as additional dowry. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih, dismissed the divorce petition on April 19, 2023, leading to the filing of the instant first appeal.

The primary questions before the court were whether the appellant-husband successfully established that the respondent-wife was suffering from an incurable unsound mind or mental disorder warranting dissolution of marriage, and whether he was subjected to matrimonial cruelty.

Court Rejects Vague Claims Of Insanity Without Medical Proof

The court analyzed the statutory framework under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, observing that the provision contemplates either incurable unsoundness of mind or continuous/intermittent mental disorder of such a kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The bench emphasized that such mental conditions must be proved by cogent, tangible evidence, ideally through expert medical testimony, rather than relying on self-serving oral assertions.

"No Medical Evidence Led To Prove Mental Disorder"

The judges noted that the husband failed to examine any psychiatrist, medical practitioner, or expert witness to substantiate the claim of mental illness. Furthermore, the court highlighted that during her lengthy cross-examination, the wife answered all questions in a coherent, well-mannered, and articulate fashion, completely belying the husband's claims of abnormal or aggressive behavior.

"Marriage Is Not To Be Easily Disrupted By Hardships"

Citing apex court jurisprudence including Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta and Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Padma Latha, the bench reiterated that the law does not recognize all mental abnormalities as grounds for divorce. The court underscored that spouses must weather the storms of life together, and ordinary sickness or health challenges cannot be used as an easy exit strategy to abandon a partner.

"No Evidence Of Matrimonial Cruelty Established"

Addressing the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a), the court observed that the husband's testimony lacked any specific assertion that the wife physically assaulted or verbally abused him or his family members. Conversely, the wife's testimony regarding dowry demands and subsequent expulsion from the matrimonial home stood corroborated by independent witnesses. The court reiterated that cruelty must be grave and weighty, and trivial irritations do not suffice.

"Finding Of Family Court Not Perverse"

The bench examined the legal definition of "perversity," referring to the benchmark laid down in Arulvelu v. State, and concluded that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was sound and logical. Finding no legal infirmity, error, or perversity in the impugned judgment, the high court upheld the refusal to grant a decree of divorce and dismissed the appeal.

Date of Decision: 23 July 2026