Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 73 [Grounds of Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955]

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides the legal framework for divorce among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. Section 13 of the Act lays down the grounds on which either spouse may seek a decree of divorce from the court. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that a marriage can be dissolved when it has become impossible for the spouses to continue living together with dignity and mutual respect.

Some of the common grounds available to both husband and wife include adultery, cruelty, desertion for a continuous period of at least two years, conversion to another religion, incurable unsoundness of mind, virulent and incurable leprosy (now omitted after legal reforms), venereal disease in a communicable form, renunciation of the world by entering a religious order, and not being heard alive for seven years or more. In addition, divorce may also be sought where there has been no restitution of conjugal rights or no resumption of cohabitation after a decree for judicial separation for the prescribed period.

The Act also provides certain additional grounds exclusively available to the wife. These include the husband’s conviction for offences such as rape, sodomy, or bestiality, a decree or order for maintenance without subsequent cohabitation, and marriages solemnised before the commencement of the Act where the husband had another living wife. Under Section 13B, both spouses may also jointly file a petition for divorce by mutual consent, provided they have lived separately for the required period and mutually agree that the marriage should be dissolved.

Indian courts have clarified these grounds through several landmark decisions. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Supreme Court explained the broad meaning of mental cruelty and held that it depends on the facts of each case. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), the Court observed that an irretrievably broken marriage causes suffering to both parties and recommended legislative recognition of irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994), the Supreme Court held that making false and serious allegations against a spouse may amount to mental cruelty and justify the grant of divorce.

Questions

Question 1

Ananya and Rohan have been married for ten years. Over the last four years, Rohan has repeatedly made false allegations before relatives and colleagues that Ananya suffers from severe mental illness despite medical reports proving otherwise. The allegations have damaged her reputation and caused extreme emotional distress. Ananya files a petition for divorce.

Which of the following is the most appropriate legal conclusion?

A. Divorce cannot be granted because there has been no physical violence.

B. Divorce can be granted only if Rohan admits making false allegations.

C. The repeated false allegations may amount to mental cruelty and can constitute a valid ground for divorce.

D. Divorce can be granted only if the parties have lived separately for two years.

Question 2

Kunal and Meera have lived separately for over three years. Kunal left the matrimonial home voluntarily without any reasonable cause and has consistently refused to return despite repeated requests from Meera. There is no evidence that Meera forced him to leave.

Which statement correctly applies the law?

A. Desertion is established only after five years of separation.

B. Meera may seek divorce on the ground of desertion if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

C. Desertion is available only as a defence and not as a ground for divorce.

D. Separation by itself automatically dissolves the marriage.

Question 3

Siddharth secretly entered into a relationship with another woman during his marriage with Kavya. Kavya later obtained reliable evidence establishing the relationship. She approaches the court seeking dissolution of marriage.

Which of the following best reflects the legal position?

A. Kavya may seek divorce on the ground of adultery under the Hindu Marriage Act.

B. Adultery is relevant only in criminal law and not in matrimonial disputes.

C. Divorce can be granted only if Siddharth has been convicted by a criminal court.

D. Adultery has no relevance once the parties continue living together.

Question 4

Dev and Priya jointly decide that they are unable to continue their marriage. They have been living separately for the period prescribed by law and both voluntarily wish to dissolve the marriage. Neither spouse alleges any fault against the other.

What is the correct legal position?

A. Divorce cannot be granted because no matrimonial offence has been committed.

B. The court must refuse the petition because neither party has proved cruelty.

C. Divorce is available only if one spouse establishes adultery.

D. The parties may seek divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B, subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions.

Question 5

Ishita obtained a decree for maintenance against her husband, Arvind. Despite the decree, the spouses have not resumed cohabitation for the prescribed statutory period. Ishita wishes to dissolve the marriage.

Which of the following is the most appropriate legal conclusion?

A. Ishita has no remedy because maintenance and divorce are entirely unrelated.

B. Divorce can be granted only if Arvind agrees to dissolve the marriage.

C. Ishita must first prove adultery before filing for divorce.

D. The Hindu Marriage Act provides the wife with an additional ground for divorce in such circumstances, subject to fulfilment of the statutory requirements.

Answers with Explanations

1. Correct Answer: C

Explanation:
Mental cruelty is a recognised ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. False, reckless, and defamatory allegations that seriously affect the dignity and mental well-being of a spouse may amount to mental cruelty. This principle was recognised by the Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat and further elaborated in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh. Therefore, Ananya has a valid ground to seek divorce.

2. Correct Answer: B

Explanation:
Desertion requires two essential elements: (i) abandonment of the spouse without reasonable cause, and (ii) intention to permanently end cohabitation. If these conditions continue for the statutory period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, the deserted spouse may seek divorce. Since Kunal voluntarily left without justification and remained away for more than the required period, Meera may seek divorce on the ground of desertion.

3. Correct Answer: A

Explanation:
Adultery is a recognised ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The spouse seeking divorce must establish that the other spouse voluntarily had sexual relations outside the marriage. A criminal conviction is not necessary for obtaining matrimonial relief. Therefore, Kavya is entitled to seek divorce based on the evidence of adultery.

4. Correct Answer: D

Explanation:
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act permits divorce by mutual consent where both spouses mutually agree that the marriage has irretrievably failed and satisfy the statutory conditions, including living separately for the prescribed period. In such cases, proving fault such as cruelty or adultery is unnecessary. Hence, Dev and Priya may seek divorce by mutual consent.

5. Correct Answer: D

Explanation:
The Hindu Marriage Act provides certain additional grounds exclusively available to the wife. One such ground arises where a decree or order for maintenance has been passed in her favour and there has been no resumption of cohabitation for the prescribed period thereafter. If these legal requirements are fulfilled, the wife may seek a decree of divorce. Therefore, Ishita has a valid statutory ground to file for divorce.