Project on

“Matrimonial Remedies under Hindu Law”

SUBMITTED TO: - Prof. Kahkashan Danyal

FACULTY, Family Law - II

SUBMITTED BY- Ujjwal Mishra

B.A. L.LB. (Self-Finance)

SEMESTER V

BATCH 2017-22

1|Page
MATRIMONIAL REMEDIES UNDER HINDU LAW
Introduction
A very striking feature of the matrimonial law of India at the present-day is its diversity. There
is no uniform single code of law applying to the marital relations of all the Indians alike
irrespective of their religious affiliations. There is the uncodified Muslim Law governing the
Musilms, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, applies to the Hindus, there are separate Acts applying
to the Christians and the Parsis. Apart from these communal pieces of legislation, there is the
Special Marriage Act, 1954, a permissive piece of legislation of general application, which can
be used by any one irrespective of religious beliefs. The Act provides a form of civil marriage.
The diversity in the realm of matrimonial law arises in India not because of her federal structure
with distribution of powers between the Centre and the States, but because India is inhabited
by various cultural, religious and social groups which profess different creeds, faiths and beliefs
and follow a distinctive pattern of life of their own and have their own characteristic attitude
and approach towards the question of matrimonial relationship.1 The Hindu marriage act was
enforced by parliament in 1955 to amend and to codify marriage laws between Hindus and also
for regulating the institution of marriage (including conditions regarding invalidity and validity
of marriage), other aspects of personal life among Hinduisms is also regulated the applicability
of such in wider Indian society. Guidance is provided by the Hindu marriage act for Hindus to
be in a systematic marriage bond. It gives a proper definition to marriage, all the rights of both
the brides and grooms and a cover to their children’s and family members so that they don’t
have to suffer because of their personal issues. The very purpose of marriage is to unite legally.
It lays down that the legally wedded couple must live together throughout the life sharing
pleasures and pains.2 However, in some cases, matrimonial disputes take place due to
misunderstanding or indifferent attitudes between the husband and the wife. In such cases, to
provide relief to the aggrieved spouse, certain matrimonial remedies are incorporated in the
Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Those matrimonial remedies are:
1.Restitution of Conjugal Rights. (Sec.9)
2.Judicial Separation. (Sec.10)
3.Void and Voidable Marriage (Sec.11 & 12) (Nullity and Annulment of Marriage)

1
Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan.-March, 1962), pp. 71-98 Published by: Indian Law
Institute
2
Marriage according to Hindu law, is a holy union for the performance of the religious duties, It is not a
contract. Mulla, Hindu Law, 518
2|Page
4.Divorce (Sec.13)
5.Divorce by Mutual Consent (Sec.13B)
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS
It is a well establishes principle that both the spouses are equally entitled to matrimonial society
and comfort(consortium) of the other. In case one spouse happens to leave the other from the
matrimonial society without any reasonable cause, the other (deserted) spouse can file a
petition in the District Court for the restitution of conjugal rights. For instance, if a husband,
without any reasonable cause leaves his wife and lives elsewhere, wife can file a petition for
the restitution of conjugal rights of the Hindu Marriage Act,195. A provision to this effect has
been provided for under Section 9, which runs as follows: “When either the husband or the
wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved
party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the
court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and there is no
legal ground why the application should not be granted may decree restitution of conjugal
rights. thus under sub-section (1) of Section 9, the husband or the wife may get a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights, where the wife or the husband, as the case may be:
i) has withdrawn from the society of the other,
ii) without reasonable excuse,
iii)the court is satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the petition, and
iv)There is no legal ground why the application should not be granted.
The explanation added to the section provides that where a question arises whether there has
been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse
shall be on person who has withdrawn from society (Krishnamurthy v/s.
Syamanthakamani,1977). The concept of Restitution of Conjugal Rights is based upon
English Matrimonial Law. In India, it was applied by the Privy Council for the first time in
1866 in Moonshee Bazloor vs. Shamsoonaissa Begum (1866-67), however, this remedy was
abolished in England in 1970. The expression ‘Reasonable Excuse’ has been inserted under the
Amendment Act of 1976. The burden of proving reasonable excuse is on the spouse, who has
withdrawn from the society of the other.

CONDITIONS:
The relief under Section 9 is subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:

3|Page
i) The marriage between the parties must be a valid marriage under Sec.5 of Hindu Marriage
Act,1955.
ii) The respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse.
iii) The court is satisfied with the truth of the statement, made in the petition.
iv) There is no legal ground, why the relief should not be granted.
i)Valid Marriage: To seek relief under Section 9,primarily the marriage must be avalid
marriage under Section 5 of the Act. Following case law explains on this point. The Petition
for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable, if the marriage
of the parties (petitioner and respondents), is not a valid marriage and was not subsisting at the
time of the petition. Parbia Ram vs. Thopali (AIR 1966)3 – In this case, it was held that if,
the parties of the restitution of conjugal rights petition are not legally married or the marriage
was not subsisting at the time of the petition, the question of granting of decree of restitution
of conjugal rights does not arise.Ranjan Vinod Kumar Kujiwal vs. V.K.Kujiwal (AIR
1997)4 – It has been held that where the petitioner wife herself alleging that her husband has
suppressed his first marriage and it was subsisting, her marriage being illegal, petition for
restitution of conjugal rights was not maintainable. Where the respondent contends the petition
under Section 9 is not maintainable on the ground that necessary marriage ceremonies were
not performed, the burden of proof is shouldered on the respondent. The relevant case on this
point is -Mallikarjunappa vs. Yerramma – In this case, it was held that where the husband
contended that the marriage was not valid as the necessary ceremonies were not performed, it
was the husband that had to prove the non-performance of necessary ceremonies as there was
presumption of a valid marriage as once the factum of marriage was proved.
ii)Withdrawal from the society: The expression ‘withdrawal from the society’ means
stopping of cohabitation or bring to an end consortium. The expression ‘withdrawal from the
society of the other’ involves a mental process besides the physical separation. The act of
temporarily leaving the matrimonial home would not amount to withdrawal from the society
of the other, when she had no intention to withdraw permanently. ‘Withdrawal from the
society’ means that it is withdrawal from the totality of conjugal relationship, such as refusal
to live together, refusal to have marital relationship (union of male & female) and refusal to
live in company and comfort of one another. In Venugopal vs. Laxmi (AIR 1936), it was held
that in a petition for restitution, it was not required to show that the parties were cohabiting

3
1966 AIR 644,1966 SCR (1)430
4
AIR 1977 Bom 300,1998(1) BomCR 268, II(1997)DMC 523
4|Page
earlier and where spouses had not cohabited at any time after marriage, a petition for restitution
would lie if intention not to cohabit was established.
iii) Reasonable Cause : The expression ‘reasonable cause’ is not defined in the Act. What is
reasonable or just would be decided in the context of facts and circumstances of each case, no
formula can be formulated for ascertaining reasonable or just grounds. The reason for
withdrawal from the society must be ‘grave and weighty’ and it may be distinct from a
matrimonial offence.
• Whether living separately for job amounts to reasonable cause?
• In all societies, the universally accepted opinion is that wife and husband must live
under the same roof sharing pleasure and pains and the wife must be obedient to her
Husband. Manu has said – ‘The wife should obey her lord’.
• However, in the modern society, under rapid changing socio-economic cultural
environment, a number of House-wives are taking up employement. which occasionally
becomes cause for conflict between her job and matrimonial obligations. The question
arises whether taking up of a job by a wife, as a place other than that of her husband, or
at husband’s desire to give up her job, amounts to desertion and her withdrawal from
the society of her husband without reasonable cause excuse and whether the husband
could get a decree of restitution of conjugal rights?
• Tirad Kaur vs. Kirpal Singh (AIR 1964) – In the instant case, the respondent (wife)
with the consent of her husband had undergone tailoring course and joined employment
elsewhere. After sometime, she was asked to resign the job (by her husband). As she
refused to do so, the husband filed a petition under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act,1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.
• The question as to the course to be adopted if the wife refused to resign her job and the
husband refused to allow the wife to continue in the job is difficult to decide. Mere
refusal on the wife’s part to resign her job is not a sufficient ground for the husband to
seek relief for the restitution of conjugal rights. The Courts have to decide on the
circumstances of each case which of the parties is reasonable. If the attitude of the wife
is reasonable the Court may dismiss the suit in its discretionary jurisdiction. If it is
unreasonable it will decree the suit on the ground that the wife has no just defence to
the action.

5|Page
• In Kailashwati vs. Ayodhaya Prakash (AIR 1977) – The Punjab and the Haryana
High Court held that wife is under an obligation to live with her husband in his home
and under the same roof except in case of distinct and specific misconduct on the part
of the husband. Where the wife against the wishes of her husband accepts employment
away from the matrimonial home and unilaterally withdraws therefrom, she would be
violating the mutual obligations of Husband and Wife to live together.
• In Mirchulal vs. Smt.Devi Bai (AIR 1977) – It was observed that it is true that
according to the principle of Hindu Law, a wife after marriage is bound to be dutiful
towards her husband and remain under the obligation of her husband in his house, but
the concept of protection of her husband and unbroken residence in his house are not
inelastic and rigid rules which cannot be interpreted in the context of the present day
conditions and need of the society.
• Women are now no longer confined within the walls of their houses. There might be
cases where on account of family circumstances a woman might have to live by herself
while the husband is working at a place, where he cannot take his wife along with him.
• Again may be a wife can be a bread winner of the family, the Husband being infirm or
out of employment. If under such compelling circumstances, a wife has to live away
from her husband, such situation would not be said to run counter to the spirit of the
Hindu Law. In such a situation it cannot be said that she has withdrawn herself from
the society of her husband. It is one thing for a wife to say that she will not go to her
Husband and will not cohabit with him. It is different if she says that it is necessary for
the up-keep of the family that she should also work and she should also go to her
husband whenever it is possible for her to do so and her husband could also come to
her at his own convenience.
iv) No legal ground to deny the Relief :- If the court is satisfied with the truth or genuineness
of the statement made in the petition and there is no legal ground, why the relief should not be
granted, the court will pass the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act,1955
• An agreement to live separately is not valid: If the parties to marriage have entered into
an agreement to live separately, such agreement is not valid.
• Cruelty on the part of one spouse is a reasonable cause: Cruelty on the part of one
spouse is a reasonable cause to the other spouse to withdraw from the society of the

6|Page
other spouse. Eg.: Impotency on the part of the Husband, insisting upon wife to take
Non-Vegetarian food, to smoke, to drink alcohol etc. amounts to reasonable cause.
• Wife entitled to maintenance: If the wife has the reasonable cause to withdraw herself
from her husband’s society, she is entitled to maintenance and separate residence under
Sec.18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956; Section 24 & 25, Hindu
Marriage act 1955, and section 125 of CrPC, 1973.
• Whether Section 9 of the HMA,1955 is violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Indian
Constitution. This question came before the A.P. H.C. in the leading case of:
T.Sareetha vs. T.Venkata (AIR 1983) – The A.P. H.C. held that the relief under
section 9 of the HMA,1955 is unconstitutional since it offends against Article 21
(personally liberty) and Article 14 (Right to equality) of the Constitution.
• Sareetha – a famous film star got married to Venkata – the A.P. H.C. dismissed the
Petition u/s 9 stating that it violates the wife’s right to privacy by compelling her to
have physical relationship against her will. However, the A.P. H.C. in Sareetha’s case
was dissented and Constitutionality of Sec. 9 was upheld in Smt. Harvinder kaur vs.
Harminder singh, AIR 1984.The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of Smt.
Harvinder Kaur vs. Harmendra Singh and opined in Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar
(AIR 1984) that leading idea of Sec. 9 is to preserve the marriage and therefore, it is
not violative of Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution.
• Mode of execution of decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Order 21 Rule 32 and
33 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the execution of a decree for restitution
of conjugal rights. Where the party against whom a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights is passed, has an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to
obey it, the decree may be enforced by attachment of his property or by his detention
in civil prison or by both. Where any attachment made under the circumstances, has
remained in force for one year, and if the party has not obeyed the decree and the decree-
holder has applied to sale of the attached property so that out of the proceeds of the
sale, he could get such compensation as the court proceeds to award.
• In a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the party, against whom the decree is
passed, cannot be compelled physically to restore cohabitation. A court is not
competent to direct that the wife or husband be, bodily handed over to the spouse and
restraint him or her of liberty until he or she is willing to render him or her conjugal
rights.
7|Page
• The decree in India is used as a stepping stone for getting a decree of divorce under
Section 13(1-A) of the Act after the expiry of one year from the date of the decree of
restitution of conjugal rights.

JUDICIAL SEPARATION
• Meaning: Judicial Separation means suspension of Conjugal Rights for some time i.e.,
one year. Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with judicial separation. This
section lays down:
• Section 10(1)5 – ‘Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the
commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree of Judicial
Separation on any of the ground specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13,and in the
case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section(2) thereof, as grounds
on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.
• Section 10(2)- ‘Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer
be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may on the
application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the
statements made in such petition rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable
to do so.’
• During the period of Judicial Separation, the parties to the marriage have no obligation
to live together or cohabit with each other. During the course of judicial separation
either party may be entitled to get maintenance from the other if the situation so
warrants. But, during this period the husband or the wife would not acquire the
competence to marry fresh. The right of fresh marriage would be available to them only
after the dissolution of marriage.
• Section 10 provides that either party to marriage may present a petition praying for a
decree of judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of
Section 13 and in case of wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub- section(2)
thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.
• Under the Marriage Laws (Amendment Act), 1976, the section has been completely
overhauled. The grounds of Judicial Separation are virtually the same which have been
provided to be grounds of divorce under Section 13(1) and (2) of the Act and

5
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
8|Page
accordingly the judicial separation, under the amended Act of 1976, can be obtained
under following grounds:
• Before 1976, the grounds available for Judicial Separation were:
i) Desertion
ii) Cruelty
iii) Leprosy
iv) Venereal Disease
• After the Amendment Act of 1976, the ground available for Divorce and Judicial
Separation are common as detailed below:
• A) Grounds available for both Husband and Wife:
i) Adultery
ii) Cruelty
iii) Desertion
iv) Conversion
v) Unsoundness of mind
vi) Leprosy
vii) Venereal Disease
• i) Adultery: Where the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had
voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse. Under the
Marriage Laws (Amendment Act,1976), the expression ‘living in adultery’ has been
dispensed with and it has been replaced by a simple requirement of adultery, that is,
voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse. And thus,
even a single act of adultery may be sufficient now for the relief under this head.
• ii) Cruelty: Where the other party has treated the petitioner with physical or mental
cruelty.
• iii) Desertion: Where the other party has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period
of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
Desertion in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give
a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of desertion in order that it
may furnish a ground for relief are:
1) The factum of separation.
2) The intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end - animus deserendi.

9|Page
3) The element of permanence which is a prime condition requires that both these essential
ingredients should continue during the entire statutory period of not less than two years.
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 include the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage.
• iv)Conversion: Where the other party has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to
another religion.
• v) Unsoundness of mind: Where the other party has been of incurable 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. 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. Further, the expression psychopathic
disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, whether or
not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.
• vi)Leprosy: Where the other party has been suffering from a virulent and an incurable
form of leprosy.
• vii)Venereal Disease: Where the other party has been suffering from venereal disease
in a communicable form.
• viii)Renunciation of world: Where the other party has renounced the world by
entering any religious order.
• Presumed Death: Where the other party 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.
B) Grounds available to Wife Alone:
i) Bigamy
ii) Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality.
iii) Non-resumption of cohabitation after decree or order of maintenance.
iv) Option of Puberty.
i)Bigamy: 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

10 | P a g e
husband married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage of the petitioner; or
ii)Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality: That the husband has since the solemnization of the
marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality; or
iii) Non-resumption of cohabitation after decree or order of maintenance: That where a
suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or in a proceeding under
Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973,a decree or order, as the case may be, has
been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife and that since the passing
of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or
upward; or
iv) Option of Puberty: That her marriage was solemnized before she attained the age of 15
years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining the age of fifteen years but before
attaining the age of eighteen years. These four additional grounds given above, are available to
wife whether her marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of Marriage
Laws (Amendment) Act of 1976.
Following are the consequences of judicial separation:
i)That the marriage tie is not dissolved.
ii)That after the passing of the decree of judicial separation, the husband and the wife are not
bound to live together or dine together as judicial separation is separation from bed and board.
iii) After the decree of judicial separation it will not be obligatory for the parties to cohabit with
each other.
iv)It does not prevent the parties from subsequently resuming cohabitation and living together
as husband and wife as originally they did. It is not necessarily for them to undergo the
ceremony of marriage again because their original marriage still subsists in spite of the decree
of judicial separation.
v)A fortiori if either spouse marries during that period, he or she will be guilty of Bigamy and
will be liable for punishment prescribed by Section 17 of this Act.
vi)The Petitioner, if she be the wife, becomes entitled to alimony from the Husband, and if he
is the husband he can claim maintenance from wife under Section 25 of this Act.
vii)The wife shall, from the date of the decree and till separation continues, be
considered as a femme sole, i.e., ‘independent woman’ with respect to property of every
description.

11 | P a g e
viii)The mutual rights and obligations arising from the marriage are suspended and the rights
and duties prescribed by the decree are substituted therefore.
JUDICIAL SEPARATION (RELEVANT CASES)
In Shyam Chand v/s. Janki(1966 HP)6: Where, the Husband asked for judicial separation on
the ground of wife’s desertion, the wife in her reply stated that she was maltreated, beaten up
and turned out of his house by the husband. She further stated that her husband kept her in
village Bedar, while he himself lived at Ghorus and the food given to her at Bedar was meagre.
She was kept there in a cow-shed, was deprived of the company of her children, was beaten up
and ultimately turned out. The wife’s averment was proved. Shakuntala v/s. Om Prakash
(1981 Delhi)7: In this case, it was held that, to constitute a ground for judicial separation or
divorce, desertion must be for the entire statutory period of two years, preceding the date of
presentation of the petition.

Divorce (section 13)

Meaning: Divorce is a process by which the marriage is dissolved (i.e., comes to an end). After
dissolution of the marriage (Divorce), the parties revert to their unmarried status and are free
to marry again. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with Divorce. The petition
for divorce can be filed by either of the parties to the marriage under any one of the following
grounds:
Section 13 (i): Adultery –
Definition: Adultery may be defined as “Consensual sexual intercourse between a married
person with another (of opposite sex) other than his/her spouse during the subsistence of the
marriage”. After the Amendment Act of 1976, single act of adultery is sufficient. The burden
of proof is on the part of the Petitioner. According to Section 497 of IPC, it is an offence.
Adultery can be committed by a man, not by a woman. The sexual intercourse must have been
committed with the consent of the woman, who is the wife of another man. The criminal action
for adultery is filed against the man(adulterer) only, not against the woman (even as an abettor).
In Matrimonial Law also, it is an offence. It is a ground against adulterer only for a matrimonial
relief on the ground of adultery, the marriage must be valid and subsisting at the time of filing
the petition. Sexual intercourse with the respondent when he/she is unconscious under the
influence of drug or liquor does not amount to adultery. In Chirutha Kutty v/s. Subramanian,

6
AIR 1966 HP 70, 1966 CriL J 1438
7
AIR 1983 Delhi 53, 19 (1981) DLT 64
12 | P a g e
AIR 1987 Kerela: The wife became pregnant despite family planning operation (Vasectomy)
by the Husband. The Court did not grant divorce in the absence of the proof that operation was
successful and there was no intercourse between them after the Vasectomy operation by the
Husband. In Tribat Singh v/s Bimala Devi(A.I.R 1958 J & K) : The fact was that a married
woman had been absenting herself from her house for four to six days and had been seen more
than once with the stranger to her husband’s family and no explanation was given by her for
having seen with the stranger at different places, leads to an irresistible conclusion that she had
contracted illicit connection with that man and had been living in adultery. In Reddi v/s.
Kistamma,(1969 Madras): The Madras High Court held that the wife was guilty of adultery
by observing that despite the disruption of relation
between the spouses, the wife gives birth to a child. In Srivastava v/s. Srivastava (AIR
1967 SC):- The S.C. held that the fact that the Husband had the knowledge about the wife
being guilty of adultery, inspite of that the Husband cohabited with the wife, is sufficient to
constitute the condonation of the wife’s fault. In Hargovinda Soni v/s. Ram Dulari, A.I.R
1986 M.P.:- The court observed that it was no longer required that adultery must be proved
beyond all reasonable doubts. It could be established by preponderance of probabilities. The
proof of adultery must be of such a character as would lead a reasonable man to conclude no
other inference than the misconduct.
Section 13(ia) :– Cruelty-
Definition: It is very difficult to define the expression ‘Cruelty’. In Russel v/s. Russel(1897)
– It is defined as “Conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health,
bodily or mental, or as to give rise to Reasonable apprehension of such danger.”
The concept of cruelty varies from time to time and from society to society depending upon
socio economic conditions. In V. Bhagat v/s. D.Bhagat (1994) SCC:- It was observed that
mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon
the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to
live with the other. In Shobha Rani v/s. Madhukar Reddi [AIR 1988 SC] :- The Supreme
Court considerably enlarged the concept of cruelty and held that the demand for dowry, which
is prohibited under law, amounts to cruelty entitling the wife to get a decree for dissolution of
marriage. A new dimension has been given to the concept of cruelty. Explanation to Section
498-A provides that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman
to commit suicide would constitute cruelty. Such willful conduct which is likely to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman) would also
13 | P a g e
amount to cruelty. Harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also
constitute cruelty. In A.Jayachandra v/s. Aneel Kumar(AIR 2005 SC) :- The Supreme Court
has expressed the view about cruelty. The expression ‘cruelty’ has been issued in relation to
Human conduct or Human behavior. It is a conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial
duties and obligations. The cruelty may be physical’ intentional or unintentional. If it is a
physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree,
if it is a mental cruelty – Firstly, enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment;
Secondly, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse whether it caused reasonable
apprehension that it would be harmful/injurious to live with the other spouse. In Dastane v/s.
Dastane (AIR 1975 SC 1534):- In this case, the Supreme Court examined the entire concept
of legal cruelty. In the matter Husband brought a petition for Judicial Separation on the ground
of Cruelty. The wife of the petitioner used to give him a threat that she would put an end to her
life or she would set the house in fire. She also threatened that she will make him lose his job
and will get matter published in the newspaper. She persistently abused him and insulted his
parents. The Court held that all of them were so grave a nature as to imperil the Husband’s
sense of personal safety, mental happiness, job satisfaction and reputation. Similarly, acts like
breaking of Mangalsutra, locking out the Husband when he is due to return from the office,
rubbing chilli powder on the tongue of an infant child, beating a child mercilessly who is
running in fever, switching on the light at night and sitting beside the Husband merely to nag
with him are the acts which tend to destroy the legitimate ends and objects of matrimony. Her
frequent apologies do not reflect genuine contrition but merely device to tide over a crisis
temporarily. The court held that the conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty. Although, a case
of cruelty was established, yet the Petitioner was held to have condoned the cruelty. He has not
explained the circumstances as to how he came to lead and live a normal sexual life with a
wife of such a cruel nature. Moreover, he was the father of three children. Therefore, the case
of Judicial Separation failed and his appeal was dismissed.
CLASSIFICATION OF CRUELTY :-
1) Physical Cruelty and
2) Mental Cruelty.
Physical Cruelty: It is an act of violence by one spouse to another resulting in injury to body,
limb or health or causing reasonable apprehension. Injury to private parts also amounts to
physical cruelty (Ashok v/s. Santosh).
14 | P a g e
Some instances of Physical Cruelty:
i) Repeated Beating
ii) Burning any limb of the body
iii) Stabbing
iv) Causing fracture of any organ
v) Neglect in providing food or starving
vi) Administering something that injuries health.
vii) Keeping in illegal confinement
viii) Making attempt on life.
Mental Cruelty: Mental Cruelty can be defined as that conduct which inflicts such mental
pain and sufferings as would make it not possible for the party to live with the other. It must
be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. It is not
necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the
petitioner. Mental Cruelty includes use of abusive language, causing mental agony etc. In
N.Sreepadachandra v/s. Vasantha, (1970 Mysore):- It is a good illustration on mental
cruelty. In this case, the act of wife of abusing and insulting the husband in public was held to
be cruelty. In Shobhadevi v/s. Bhima, (AIR 1976 Orissa): Intemperate and violent behaviour
by Husband due to heavy drinking was held to be cruelty. In Smt. Satya v/s. Sri Ram(AIR
1983, P&H):- The Court observed that where the Husband himself, his sister and his parents
were always crazy to have a child in the family but the wife always dashed their hopes by
resorting to termination of pregnancy twice, this conduct of the wife amounts to mental cruelty
and the husband is well within his right to claim the decree of divorce on that ground.
Some instances of Mental Cruelty to Husband (by the wife) :-
i) Wife having undesirable relation with some other person, refusal to discontinue such relation
and also threatening the spouse to put an end to his life.
ii) Refusal to cook for the Husband and insulting him in front of his friends and relatives.
iii) Charge by wife and by her parents without medical evidence that the Husband is
impotent.
iv) Voluntary abortion without the consent of the Husband.
v) Birth of an illegitimate child within 7 months from the date of marriage.
vi) Making false complaint to the superior of the Husband that he ill-treated her which lowered
the Husband in the eyes of his employer and affecting his career and promotional opportunities.
vii) Burningthe Doctoral Thesis if the Husband is lecturer.
15 | P a g e
vii) Threatening to commit suicide and to involve the Husband and his family in criminal case.
Some instances of Mental Cruelty to wife (by Husband) :-
i)Frequent demand for dowry.
ii) Returning home late at night to the House in a drunken condition.
iii) Imputing unchastity to the wife.
iv) False charge against wife that she is not virgin.
v) Compelling the wife to adopt the life of a prostitute.
vi) Marrying another person.
vii) Imposition of a condition by the Husband on the educated wife not to do
undertake the job.

DESERTION
Section 13(ib) – Desertion:-
Before the amendment of 1976, desertion was a ground for judicial separation only. Now, it is
ground for both the judicial separation and divorce. Desertion means “leaving/abandoning the
spouse by the other spouse without reasonable cause”. The spouse who deserts is called
‘deserting spouse’ and the other, who is deserted is called ‘deserted spouse’. Desertion is “a
withdrawal not from a place, but from a state of things”.
To constitute desertion, the following conditions must be satisfied:
i)Factum of Separation (intention to live separately); and
ii) Intention to bring cohabitation to an end permanently.
iii) Without reasonable cause.
iv) Without consent or wish of the deserted spouse.
The burden of proof in case of desertion is always on the petitioner. He or she must show that
it was without any reasonable excuse and that it existed throughout the period at least two
years. Bipin Chandra v/s. Prabhavati,(AIR 1957 SC):- In this case, the parties got married
in 1942.The wife was living at her matrimonial home with the Husband and his parents and
two unmarried sisters, after sometime, a son was born to them. In 1947, the Husband went
abroad (England) and wife developed an illicit relationship with a family friend. The Husband,
after returning from England discovered the illicit relationship and questioned wife but wife
denied but could not give any explanation in this respect and in May, 1947 she left for her
parental home to attend her cousin’s wedding which was to take place in June. On July,1947,the
Husband sent the legal notice to the wife through his solicitor in which after mentioning the

16 | P a g e
fact that she had left her against his wishes and further stated that he did not desire to keep her
back any longer under his care and protection and demanded her to send the minor son to him.
On July, 1951, the Husband instituted the suit for Divorce on the ground of desertion of wife
ever since 1947, without reasonable cause and against his will for a period of four years.
The wife further stated that it was the Husband who was wiling to desert her and therefore
seeking for divorce. There was evidence which proved that after solicitor’s notice the wife and
her father and other relatives tried to bring reconciliation between the parties but they failed
owing to the attitude of the Husband. The Supreme Court after analyzing the fact and
contentions dismissed the petition of Divorce filed by the Husband. In Geeta Jagdish
Mangtani v/s. Jagdish Mangtani (AIR 2005 SC) :- The case arose based upon a petition by
the Husband on the ground of desertion by the wife. Wife deserted the Husband on the ground
that he was not having enough income. She left matrimonial home of Mumbai and continued
to stay with her parents in Gujarat. No attempt was made by her to stay with her Husband,
clearly signifying (animus deserendi). According to Husband parties knew the income of one
another prior to the marriage but the wife chose to adopt the course of conduct which proved
desertion on her part without reasonable cause. This amounted to the humiliation of Husband
and therefore the Divorce was granted to the Husband.
Without Reasonable Cause: To constitute desertion, the separation must be without
reasonable cause. The following have been held to constitute sufficient grounds for desertion:
i)Confession of adultery by the wife.
ii) Habitual drunkenness of wife.
iii) Persistence in the false charge of unnatural offence having been committed by the Husband.
iv) Unreasonable and persistent refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage; and
v) Wife permitting indecent liberties taken by others with her.
Without consent or wish of the deserted spouse :- If the deserting spouse has left the
matrimonial without the consent of the deserted spouse, it amounts to desertion.
Constructive Desertion:- “Such desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a
state of things”. To constitute such desertion there must be separation of households, not a
separation of houses. The parties thus may be in desertion even if living under the same roof.
(Hope v/s. Hope) (1949) If one spouse by his words or conduct compels the other spouse to
leave the matrimonial home, the former will be guilty of desertion, though it is the latter who
physically separated from the other.(Lang v/s. Lang) (1955). In short, the spouse who intends

17 | P a g e
bringing cohabitation to an end and whose conduct in fact causes its termination, commits the
act of desertion. (Bowven v/s. Bowven) (1920)
In Jyotish Chandra v/s. Meera,(AIR 1970 Cal 266):- In this matter after the marriage the
wife came to stay with her Husband. The averments of wife were that she found him cold,
indifferent and sexually abnormal and perverse. Shortly, after the marriage, the Husband left
for England and the wife got busy with M.A. examination. On return from England, the
Husband continued to be cold and hardly spent time with his wife. He used to return very late
in the night from the club. Now, after few years the wife at the instance of her husband went to
England to do her PH.D., where she stayed from 1948-1951.On her return from England, she
found her husband more cold. She went to Jaipur stayed with her parents for sometime.
Thereafter, she went to live with her Husband. Wife’s suffering and mental agony continued
in 1952, she got a job of a lecturer in Calcutta University. Realizing that she had to live a
frustrated married life, she dedicated her life to work. In the same house, both the spouse
became stranger to one another and this manner of life continued till 1954, each one of them
having his or her own way of
In November, 1954 the wife left the Husband’s home and had made up her mind to abandon
the matrimonial home. In 1955 when the wife’s father tried to bring reconciliation between the
spouses heated discussion and quarrel took place between the wife and the Husband and
between the parents and sister of the wife. Under these circumstances wife petitioned for
divorce. The Court in the above case found that throughout the matrimonial relation the
husband was indifferent and cold towards the wife and therefore forced the wife to leave her
matrimonial home, Therefore, the Husband himself became guilty for desertion even though
wife left the matrimonial home.
In Constructive Desertion, it is the behavior of one party which makes him the deserter,
though he continues to live in the matrimonial home, such a behavior may be of two types: a)
A spouse may physically expel the other, such as one may order the other spouse to leave the
matrimonial home (Dunn v/s. Dunn) ( 1967) ;
Section 13(ii) - Conversion :-
Conversion means “Change of religion”. It is a process by which a person gets converted from
one religion to another. Eg.: If a Hindu took Christianity, he/she ceased to be a Hindu. It is a
good ground for the spouse to take divorce. Under Section 13(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 if the respondent has ceased to be Hindu by conversion to another religion, divorce may
be obtained. Under the clause two conditions must be satisfied:
18 | P a g e
i) Respondent has ceased to be a Hindu, and ii ) He has converted to another religion.8
Section 13(iii) – Insanity (Unsoundness of mind) :-
Before 1976 Amendment, the respondent must have been incurably of unsound mind for a
period of 2 years for Judicial separation, and 3 years for divorce preceding the date of the
petition. The 1976 Amendment changed the position. Now, the respondent has been incurably
of unsound mind or has been suffering from mental disorder that the petitioner cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Eg.: Epilepsy. In Ram Narayan v/s.
Rameshwari (AIR 1989 SC) – The S.C. held that in schizophrenic mental disorder, the
Petitioner should prove not merely the said mental disorder but should also establish that on
that account the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The
S.C. laid emphasis on assessment of the degree of “mental disorder”. Merely branding a person
as schizophrenic therefore will not suffice for purpose of Section 13(1)(iii).
Section 13(iv) : Leprosy:-
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 has made leprosy a ground both for judicial
separation and divorce. No duration of leprosy is specified. Under the clause, the petitioner is
required to show that the Respondent has been suffering from virulent and incurable leprosy.
Thus, two conditions are necessary: It must be
– a) Virulent, and b) Incurable.
A mild type of Leprosy which is capable of treatment is neither a ground of Judicial Separation
nor for Divorce. Swarajya Laxmi v/s. Padma Rao, AIR 1974 SC:- The Husband, a medical
practitioner discovered that his wife was suffering from leprosy. The Husband was granted the
decree of divorce.
Section 13(v) – Venereal Disease (STD):-
Earlier (i.e., before the Amendment of 1976), to get the decree of divorce on the ground of
Venereal Disease, the respondent had been suffering from it for a period of not less than 3
years. Now it is sufficient if the respondent is suffering from the disease at the time of filing of
the petition. If it is attacked to the respondent from the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled
to the relief. Syphilis, Gonorrhea are mentioned as Venereal Disease under the English
Venereal Disease Act, 1917.The present section requires that the disease must be in
communicable form. The Venereal Disease are only such diseases which are communicable by
sexual intercourse. Mr. X v/s. Z Hospital (AIR 1998 SC) :- In the matter, ‘X’ blood was to

8
LILY THOMAS v/s. U.O.I (A.I.R 2000) (SC)
19 | P a g e
be transfused to another. But, ‘X’ was found to be HIV+. This fact was disclosed by ‘Z’
Hospital to Ms. A, would be wife of Mr. X. Consequently, marriage proposal was called off.
‘X’ filed a case against Hospital ‘Z’ for disclosing the fact and for infringing his “Right to
Privacy”. It was observed by the court that since venereal disease is a ground of Divorce, it
implies that a person suffering from Venereal Disease prior to marriage must be injuncted from
entering into marriage. The Court held that Right to be Informed shall prevail over Right to
Privacy if it is about threat to someone’s life/health.
Section 13 (vi) – Renunciation of world:-
The Petitioner can seek divorce, if the respondent has renounced the world by entering any
religious order. The renunciation requires relinquishment of all property and worldly affairs.
Hindu recognizes Sanyasa Ashrama as the last of the four ashrams into which the life of Hindu
is organised. On of the ceremonies that is performed before one enters into this ashrama is
one’s own funeral rites. In Sheetal Das v/s. Sita Ram (AIR 1954 SC) :- The Supreme Court
has observed that renunciation of world affairs followed by entrance into a religious order
generally operates as civil death and it is necessary that all the required ceremonies for entering
the religious sect or order are proved satisfactorily.
Section 13(vi) or Section (vii) – Presumed Death (Unheard for seven years) :-
If the whereabouts of one spouse are unknown for a period of seven years, the other spouse can
presume his/her death and can institute a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Under Section
108, Evidence Act a person is presumed to be dead if he is not heard of as alive for seven years
or more by those who would have normally heard from him or about him had he been alive.
The burden of proving that such a person is not dead but alive lies on him who affirms it. The
question that becomes important in matrimonial law is : can the other spouse on the basis of
presumption of death assume that he or she has become a widower or widow respectively an
therefore the marriage stands dissolved? And, on this assumption, can he or she contract a
second marriage? After sometime if the missing spouse re-appears can the validity of second
marriage be maintained? The answer is in the negative. Not only will the second marriage not
be valid, the spouse can also be prosecuted for Bigamy. To avoid the risk of missing spouse
reappearing rendering the second marriage void, Section 13(vi) or (vii) provides that the
petitioner may obtain a decree of dissolution of marriage on this ground. Once the marriage is
dissolved, the petitioner is free to marry again. It may be noted that if the second marriage is

20 | P a g e
performed on the basis of presumption of death without getting a decree of divorce, no person
other than the missing spouse can question the validity of the second marriage.9
Section 13(1A) (i) – Non-Resumption of marriage after decree of Judicial Separation :-
If the disputing spouses do not reconcile/resume matrimonial life within one year from the date
of the decree under Section 10 (Judicial Separation), either of the spouses can file a petition for
divorce under Section 13. (Before the 1976 Amendment the period was two years).
Gajna Devi v/s. Purushottam Giri (AIR 1977 Delhi): Where the wife has obtained the decree
of Judicial Separation on cruelty ground and the Husband makes a petition for Divorce after
two years of the separation on the ground that there was no resumption of cohabitation. The
Court passed the decree of Divorce.
Section 13 (1A) (ii) - Non-Resumption of marriage after decree of Restitution of Conjugal
Rights:-
If the parties do not rejoin/resume matrimonial home within one year or upwards after
obtaining the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, either of the parties can resort to file a
petition for divorce under Section 13. (Before the 1976 Amendment, only the petitioner, who
got the decree under Section 9 could file a petition, not the respondent. O.P. Mehta v/s. Smt.
Saroj Mehta (AIR 1984 Delhi) :- The decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in
favor of the Husband. After 4 & ½ months, Husband brought a petition for Divorce on the
ground of adultery by wife. Later on after one year he brought another petition on the ground
that wife didn’t complied with the decree of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The court held
that non compliance of decree is justified and accordingly dismissed the petition of Divorce on
the ground that during the pendency of the petition for divorce on the Ground of wife’s
adultery, the wife was disabled to join her Husband and passing of decree of Divorce in
Husband’s favor would amount to Husband taking advantage of his own wrong.(Nullus
commodum capere potest de injuria-No man can take the advantage of his own wrong.)
GROUNDS AVAILABLE TO WIFE ALONE:-
Section 13 (2) (i) – Bigamy :-
Section 13(2)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that in the case of the marriage of
the wife solemnized before the commencement of the Act, (i.e., before 18th May, 1955) the
wife can apply for divorce on the ground that the Husband had married again before such
commencement of the Act. If the Husband whose wife is alive,gets married again, it amounts

9
(Nirmoo v/s. Nikkaram, AIR 1968 Delhi)
21 | P a g e
to bigamy and is guilty of an offence under Section 494 of IPC. To file a petition on the ground
of bigamy, the first and the second wife must be alive at the time of filing the petition under
Section 13 by the first wife. The second wife cannot file a petition under Section 13, since her
marriage itself was void. In Gita Bai v/s. Fattoo,(AIR 1966 MP) :- In a petition under section
13(2)(i) by wife on the ground of a second marriage by Husband which was solemnized after
the commencement of the Act of 1955, the Husband admitted the facts of second marriage and
was living with her. It was held that second marriage by the Husband was void-ab- initio under
Section 11 read with Section 5(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to a decree of
Divorce.
Section 13(2)(ii) – Sexual Offences i.e., Rape, Sodomy, Bestiality :-
A wife can file a petition under Section 13 if her Husband is guilty of certain sexual offences
viz., Rape, Sodomy, Bestiality etc. Section 13(2) (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 enables
the wife to obtain a decree of Divorce where the Husband has since the solemnization of
marriage been guilty of Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality. The expression ‘rape’ or ‘sodomy’ have
been defined in Sections 375 & 377 of the Penal Code. Section 375 defines ‘rape’ while Section
377 ‘Unnatural Offences’.
Virgo v/s. Virgo, 69 LT 460
Bosworthick v/s. Bosworthick (1902)
Bromley v/s. Bromley(1793)
Naz Foundation v/s. Government of NCT, Delhi
Section 13(2)(iii) –Non-Resumption of Marriage after decree of maintenance :-
Under Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where a decree or order
has been passed against the Husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that
(i) she was living apart and that (ii) since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation
between the parties Has not been resumed for one year or upward, a wife on this ground may
present a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of Divorce. The wife, who has
been granted the decree for maintenance under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act,1956 or under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or under Section 24 & 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, can file a petition under Section 13 for Divorce if the cohabitation between the parties
has not taken place even after the lapse of one year. In B. Ansuya v/s. B. Rajaiah (AIR 1971
AP) :- A decree for maintenance was obtained by wife against her Husband. When the wife
sought enforcement of decree, Husband pleaded in answer to the petition that after the decree
the wife came to live with him and consequently the decree could no longer be deemed to be
22 | P a g e
effective. The Court held that the law has made a rule that resumption of cohabitation puts an
end to the decree for maintenance. This rule is based on sound common sense and policy.
Section 13(2)(iv) – Repudiation of Marriage / Option of Puberty :-
This provision was enshrined in the Act under the 1976 Amendment. Where a marriage was
solemnized before or after the Act, if the woman was below the age of 15years (whether the
marriage was consummated or not). It is just and reasonable if she seeks this benefit even after
attaining 18 years, if the marriage is not consummated. In Bathula Ilahi v/s. Bathula
Devamma,(AIR 1981 AP) :- The Court granted the decree after the wife had attained the age
of 18 years. The wife in this case had repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of
15years.She came to know later on about the passing of Marriage Laws (Amendment)Act,
1976, which entitled her to bring present petition .The Court held that even though she has
presented the petition after attainment of 18years yet the petition would be allowed as her
marriage was solemnized before 15 years of age and she repudiated the marriage after
attainment of 15years but before the attainment of 18 years and also

‘Divorce by Mutual Consent”

Section 13-B of the Act deals with ‘Divorce by Mutual Consent”. This Section was inserted
under the Amendment Act, 1976. It means “both the parties agree to dissolve their marriage by
divorce”.
Requisites : - The following conditions are to be satisfied for the divorce by mutual consent :
i) Both the spouses should file the petition for divorce jointly;
ii) The spouses have been living separately for more than one year preceding the date of filing
the petition;
iii) They have not been able to live together; and
iv) They mutually agree to dissolve the marriage.
After filing the petition, the parties may withdraw the petition. If not withdrawn, the Court may
after 6months and before 18 months pass a decree for divorce,
after hearing the parties. In Raj Vinod v/s. Smt. Durga Devi (2002) :- Where the parties
reached a consensus that they cannot happily live together as husband and wife since their
separation was for a substantial period of sixteen years. As a result of the consensus, they
decided to present joint divorce petition and the divorce by mutual consent allowed. Whether
one spouse can withdraw unilaterally petition of Divorce by Mutual Consent? As stated above,
provision was made to withdraw the petition for divorce by mutual consent. Now the question

23 | P a g e
is, whether one party can withdraw the petition? The trial court answered the question in the
affirmative, while the court of appeal answered in the negative in the case of: Jayashree v/s.
Ramesh,(A.I.R 1984) :- Both the parties filed a petition for Divorce under Section 13-
B.Subsequently, the Husband alone filed an application for withdrawal of the petition. But, the
Bombay High Court held that once consent is given it cannot be withdrawn without the consent
of the other spouse. This view was followed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Nachhatar Singh v/s. Barcharan Kaur, AIR 1986. But the Rajasthan High Court did not
follow this view in Santosh Kumari v/s. Virendra Kumar, AIR 1986 and held that any one
of the parties to the petition could withdraw the petition till the last day. Sureshta Devi v/s.
Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC :- The Supreme Court had settled the above controversy and held
that consent given for mutual divorce can be withdrawn unilaterally i.e., by either of the
parties/spouses. In Ashok Hurra v/s. Rupa Bipin Zaveri (or Rupa Hurra) (AIR 1977 SC
1266):- The Supreme Court has observed that where wife and Husband filed Divorce petition
under Section 13-B (Mutual Consent) and one of them withdraws his/her consent thereafter,
the Court has discretionary power to proceed with the case and to grant divorce decree if the
evidences were in favour of the petitioner by overriding the general principle ‘after submission
of petition, if any of the spouses withdraws the consent, the Court will not sanction divorce on
the petition before it’.

CONCLUSION
Hindu marriage is considered as a sacramental. According to the Manu10 husband and wife are united
to each other not merely in this life but even after the death, in the other world. The rule is that, once is
a maiden given in marriage. A true wife must preserve her chastity as much after as before her husband’s
death.Hindu marriage act, 1955 do not prescribed any specific form of marriage it just simply lays down
some criteria for a valid marriage. All the conditions and criteria which were mentioned under the old
Hindu law were considered as very strict in nature,But after the commencement of the Hindu marriage
act 1955 it modifies all the conditions and criteria of the old law and also make the law more liberalized.
According to the new law, it gave the permission for marrying in different caste and community and it
also abolished all the restrictions which were made on intercaste, sagotra, inter-sub-caste and sapravara
marriages. According to the new law, any two different sex person who were Hindu by religion and
fulfilling all the term and conditions of this act then they can do the marriage. Thus, the new act of 1955
modifies the old Hindu law of marriage and makes the procedure and performance of the marriage more
easier and this is the welcomed changed which is happily accepted by the present society.

10
Manu smriti, V, 160-161;Dr. Paras Diwan on Hindu Law, 2nd edn. P.547, Orient Publishing Company.
24 | P a g e
Bibliography

Paras Diwan, Family law of marriage and divorce in India, Allahabad law agency

Mulla, Priciples of Hindu law, Butterworth co.

Diwan Paras, Modern Hindu Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad

Subba Rao, G.C.V., Family Law in India, S. Gogia and Co.

Kumud Desai, Marriage and Divorce in India, NM Tripathi, Mumbai

Mullas, Mohamedan Law, NM Tripathi, Mumbai

Tahir Mahmood, Muslim Law,Universal Law Publishing co. New Delhi

http://www.legalserviceindia.com

http://www.timesofindia.com

http://www.lawctopus.com

http://www.study.com

http://www.indian kanoon.com

http://www.manupatra.com

25 | P a g e