Mental Disorder Alone Insufficient Ground for Divorce: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient grounds for seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). A Division Bench comprising Justices Ranjan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla clarified that Section 13(1)(iii) of the HMA requires the mental disorder to be of such a degree that the spouse seeking divorce cannot reasonably be expected to live with the affected partner.

11/15/20241 min read

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient grounds for seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). A Division Bench comprising Justices Ranjan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla clarified that Section 13(1)(iii) of the HMA requires the mental disorder to be of such a degree that the spouse seeking divorce cannot reasonably be expected to live with the affected partner. The Court emphasized that not all mental abnormalities qualify as grounds for divorce, and the nature and severity of the illness must be established with medical evidence and clear proof.

In the case before the Court, the husband filed for divorce in 2011, claiming that his wife, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, had not disclosed her illness before their marriage in 2003. He argued that her condition rendered her infertile, jeopardizing his lineage. However, the family court dismissed the plea, noting that while the husband proved his wife’s diagnosis, he failed to demonstrate that the illness was severe enough to justify the dissolution of their marriage. The High Court upheld this finding, explaining that evidence of treatment alone does not establish the gravity of the mental disorder as required by law.

Despite this, the High Court dissolved the marriage, citing the couple’s prolonged separation of over a decade and the wife’s apparent disinterest in contesting the appeal or living with her husband. The Court remarked that such prolonged separation and mutual disinclination to reconcile often signify that the marital bond is irreparably broken, which may also amount to mental cruelty. It noted that clinging to the idea of marriage in such circumstances disregards the emotional and psychological well-being of both parties. The husband was represented by Advocates Bhavini Upadhyay, Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, and Sandhya Dubey.