Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 · Nullity of marriage and divorce
Section 13: Divorce
(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—
[(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
[(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]
* * * * *
(v) has * * * 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; ***
*** *
[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.]
[(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 [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 [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 [bestiality; or]
[(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 amendments to this section
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]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 16 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 13
-
Geeta @ Reeta Mishra v. Ajay Kumar Mishra
The High Court has affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court vide order dated 20.09.2019. Whether respondent-husband should contribute towards the marriage expenses of his daughter.
-
M.V. Leelavathi v. Dr. C.R. Swamy @ Dr. C.R. Kumara Swamy
The Family Court awarded Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony, which was upheld by the High Court.
-
Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the matrimonial appeal filed by the appellant-husband refusing to grant divorce to the parties.
-
Vibhor Garg v. Neha
Issue arose whether the conversation between spouses secretly recorded by one of them could be permitted to be made admissible in evidence; whether in light of the Evidence Act and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a…
-
Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Whether the High Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction erred in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
-
Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that there were specific allegations in the FIR and Chargesheet even after dropping the charge of Section 376, IPC in order to maintain the criminal proceedings against the…
-
Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep
Issue arose as regards permanent alimony to be given by respondent-husband to appellant-wife, post-divorce.
-
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by…
-
Sugirtha v. Gowtham
Whether a child can be made to travel 300 kms to enable the father to exercise visitation rights to the child.
-
Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda
Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the…
-
Ganapati Bhikarao Naik v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Award passed by Labour Court wherein Labour Court allowed the reinstatement of the employee with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other…
-
Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita
Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.
-
Jatinder Kumar Sapra v. Anupama Sapra
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was it a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown…
-
Yagwati @ Poonam v. Ghanshyam
Maintenance granted to the appellant by the Family Court, enhanced by High Court. If to be enhanced further.
-
Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Whether the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC could be exercised with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdict ion of the said Court; and…
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
- Sh. Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita
- Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
- Ruchi Rawat v. Principal Judge, Family Court Etah & Anr.
- N. Rajendran v. S. Valli
- Nitaben Dinesh Patel v. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel
- Mangayarkarasi v. M. Yuvaraj
- Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar
- Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
- Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
- Mrs. Kanika Goel v. State of Delhi Through S.H.O. and Anr.
- Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur
- Jalendra Padhiary v. Pragati Chhotray
- Independent Thought v. Union of India & Anr.
- Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh
- Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam
- Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh
- Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
- Ram Saran Varshney and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Soni Kumari v. Deepak Kumar
- Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar
- Raj Kumar Rana v. Rita Rathore
- K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita
- Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy
- Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. v. Dr. B.V. Ravi M.D.
- B. Chandrika v. Santhosh & Anr
- Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha
- Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta
- Ashok Kumar Jain v. Sumati Jain
- U. Sree v. U. Srinivas
- Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia
- Vishwanath S/O Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal
- Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal
- State of U. P. v. Mohd .. Iqram & Anr.
- Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur
- Sanjeeta Das v. Tapan Kumar Mohanty
- Smt. Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar
- Manisha Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar
- Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain
- Undavali Narayana Rao v. State of A.P.
- Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
- Mitali v. Dababrata
- Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma
- Rajesh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
- Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur
- Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree
- Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi
- Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi and Ors.
- Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur
- Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil
- Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli
- Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee and Anr.
- Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhatl Tripathy
- A Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur
- G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli
- Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey
- Adhyatma Bhatiar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhatiar Sri Devi
- Chetandass v. Kamla Devi
- Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc v. Union of India and Ors.
- Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma
- Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri and Ors.
- Smt. Yallaww v. Smt. Shantavva
- Smt. Vanamala v. Shri H.N. Ranganatha Bhatia
- V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat
- Smt. Chandrakala Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi
- Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan
- Mrs. Payal Ashok Kumar Jindal v. Capt. Ashok Kumar Jindal
- Anita Laxmi Narayan Singh v. Laxmi Narain Singh