The appellant (husband) sued the respondent (wife) in this case. The appellant first petitioned a family court for dissolution of marriage due to cruelty by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 (Hindu Marriage Act). The appellant claimed that the respondent was not mentally stable and refused to live together (cohabit) with him. He further claimed that the respondent married him simply to break her virginity and not to live together or form a household. They got married in 2015.The family court rejected the petition for the following reasons: a) the appellant failed to establish his charges against the respondent; and b) the respondent did not appear in court after many warnings, therefore it was claimed “ex parte.”
when the matter was heard by the high court. The respondent’s cruelty was not proven by the court. The woman had a cyst in her uterus, which prevented her from becoming pregnant and reproducing for the family, and the guy wanted to divorce the marriage because of this.The court also observed that the appellant hadn’t taken legal action under section 9 of the HMA and the court noted that the divorce petition was filed within 2 years of marriage and have lived together for only 2 months so the court ruled out the possibility of desertion as a ground for divorce (to which the applicant added he was only 24 years old and had a desire to become a father).
The petition filed under the High court of patna under the guidance of P.B Bajanthri and jitendra kumar held that “Developing any disease during the continuation of marriage is not within the control of any spouse. In such a situation, the other spouse has a marital duty to co-operate and bear with it and help the other spouse.”[1]
- MAHEK JAIN , intern under legal vidhiya.
[1] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/07/27/inability-to-bear-child-is-neither-impotence-nor-a-ground-for-dissolving-marriage-patna-hc/
