Grounds for Divorce in India

In India divorce is granted mainly on 5 different grounds. (You can see the grounds for divorce for Muslims here (section number 2):

Adultery

Desertion

Cruelty

Impotency

Chronic Diseases

In detailed Overview of grounds of Divorce:

The secular mind-set of the Indian judicial system has initiated proclamation of various personal laws based on different religious faiths. Hindus, Christians and Muslims are governed under separate marriage acts and grounds for divorce in India.
Let us have a look at the various grounds for divorce in India.
The following are the grounds for divorce in India mentioned under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Adultery – The act of indulging in any kind of sexual relationship including intercourse outside marriage is termed as adultery. Adultery is counted as a criminal offence and substantial proofs are required to establish it. An amendment to the law in 1976 states that one single act of adultery is enough for the petitioner to get a divorce.

Cruelty – A spouse can file a divorce case when he/she is subjected to any kind of mental and physical injury that causes danger to life, limb and health. The intangible acts of cruelty through mental torture are not judged upon one single act but series of incidents. Certain instances like the food being denied, continuous ill treatment and abuses to acquire dowry, perverse sexual act and such are included under cruelty.

Desertion – If one of the spouses voluntarily abandons his/her partner for at least a period of two years, the abandoned spouse can file a divorce case on the ground of desertion.

Conversion – Incase either of the two converts himself/herself into another religion, the other spouse may file a divorce case based on this ground.
Mental Disorder – Mental disorder can become a ground for filing a divorce if the spouse of the petitioner suffers from incurable mental disorder and insanity and therefore cannot be expected from the couple to stay together.

Leprosy – In case of a ‘virulent and incurable’ form of leprosy, a petition can be filed by the other spouse based on this ground.

Venereal Disease – If one of the spouses is suffering from a serious disease that is easily communicable, a divorce can be filed by the other spouse. The sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS are accounted to be venereal diseases.

Renunciation – A spouse is entitled to file for a divorce if the other renounces all worldly affairs by embracing a religious order.

Not Heard Alive – If a person is not seen or heard alive by those who are expected to be ‘naturally heard’ of the person for a continuous period of seven years, the person is presumed to be dead. The other spouse should need to file a divorce if he/she is interested in remarriage.

No Resumption of Co-habitation – It becomes a ground for divorce if the couple fails to resume their co-habitation after the court has passed a decree of separation.

(i) Hindu Marriage Act: Section 13 - Cruelty:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Naval Kishore Somani -vs- Poonam Somani reported in AIR 1999 AP 1 has held that the Petitioner has a right to claim divorce on the ground that by making false, baseless, vexatious and malicious allegations in the written statement, cruelty is afflicted upon the Petitioner. However, divorce cannot be claimed where the Respondent has merely failed to prove those allegations. The Petitioner in order to prove that the Respondent has afflicted cruelty by making such allegations has to prove that the said allegations made by the Respondent are false, baseless, vexatious and malicious.

(ii) Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 19:

The Kerala High Court by its Judgment in the case of V.C.Thomas -vs- A.N. Thomas alias Kunjumol - reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 1, has held that a marriage of an Indian Christian cannot be declared to be null and void on the ground of husband claiming lunacy of wife when there was no evidence to that effect nor any doctor was examined showing that the wife was suffering from mental illness before or at the time of marriage, particularly when the evidence of Court guardian indicated that wife was a normal person. In this case as the wife had not appeared before the Court nor raised any objection the matter was remanded back at the request of the husband to adduce further evidence so as to establish that the wife was suffering from mental illness at the time of the marriage.

(iii) Indian Divorce Act 1869 - Section 19:

The Kerala High Court by its Judgment in the case of George Joseph -vs- Alphonsa alias Lovely Mathew & Another - reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 25, has held that the husband was not entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of lunacy of wife on account of failure of husband to establish that the wife was insane at the time of marriage. It was also held that divorce cannot be granted under the Indian Divorce Act on the ground that the wife had become incurably unsound in mind as it was not a ground contemplated by Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

(iv) Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Section 19:

The Kerala High Court in the case of Saly Joseph -vs- Baby Thomas - reported in AIR 1999 Kerala 66, the Kerala High Court held that a marriage was held to be liable to be declared null and void on the ground of fraud. In this case the wife had proved that her consent to the marriage with the husband was obtained by exercising fraud by concealing educational qualifications of the Husband. The wife had given evidence that if she would have been aware of the qualification of the husband that he had not passed Pre-Degree and A/C Mechanism Diploma and that he had worked only for some time in Bahrain as a Salesman, she would not have given her consent for the marriage as she wanted a man having a decent job in Gulf. From her evidence, it was clear that even if her husband had no job in Gulf she could secure a job for him if he was an A/C Mechanic as stated by him at the time of obtaining her consent for marriage. She had also stated that a proposal by an Engineer was turned down because she wanted a Gulf employee. It was held that the husband had concealed his qualification and misrepresented to the wife that he had a job at Bahrain and that he had to rejoin soon as he was on a short leave. The wife was very particular about the quality of a person which was concealed from her and thus her consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud. The Court therefore held that the marriage is liable to be declared as null and void.