The Jharkhand High Court has held that a spouse's alleged mental disorder cannot, by itself, become a ground for divorce unless the condition and its severity are established through reliable medical and expert evidence. The Court also rejected allegations of matrimonial cruelty that were not supported by independent or documentary evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Akhil Kumar examined whether the husband's allegations against his wife satisfied the requirements of Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Background
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on July 14, 2021, in Dhanbad. After their marriage, the couple moved to the United States, where they began living together.
The husband alleged that his wife had displayed unusual behaviour since the beginning of their marriage and that her parents had concealed her alleged history of mental illness. He further claimed that she had been diagnosed with psychotic disorder and paranoid schizophrenia during medical treatment in the United States. He also accused her of physical and mental cruelty, including allegedly attacking him with a kitchen knife and attempting suicide.
On these grounds, he approached the Family Court seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the wife denied suffering from any such mental disorder and maintained that she wanted to continue the marriage. She also alleged that her husband and his family had subjected her to mental pressure.
The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition in December 2024, following which the husband challenged the decision before the High Court.
The High Court examined the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents produced during the trial. It found that the allegations of knife attacks, suicide attempts and violent behaviour were not supported by independent witnesses, medical records, police complaints or other contemporaneous evidence.
The Court also noted that the husband's own admissions showed that the couple had remained in contact, lived together in India and subsequently travelled to the United States, where they continued living together until March 2023.
The Bench observed:
"The serious allegations regarding attack by knife, attempts to commit suicide and violent conduct have not been corroborated by any independent witness, medical record, police report or contemporaneous document. PW-2 admittedly had not witnessed any such incident and his testimony is substantially based upon what he had heard from others. Such hearsay evidence cannot form the basis of a finding of matrimonial cruelty."
Accordingly, the Court found no sufficient evidence to establish matrimonial cruelty.
Examining Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Bench explained that the provision covers incurable unsoundness of mind as well as continuous or intermittent mental disorders of such severity that the other spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the affected spouse.
The Court clarified that the existence of a psychiatric condition alone does not automatically justify divorce. Its nature, duration and severity must also be established.
The Bench observed:
"From the wording of the aforesaid provision, it can be said that the mental condition like incurable unsound mind mentioned in the first part or the mental disorder mentioned in the second part needs to be proved by expert evidence and that evidence needs to satisfy the Court that such mental condition exists."
The Court further examined the medical documents relied upon by the husband. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not produced the medical records of the doctor who allegedly treated his wife. The hospital discharge papers also did not mention schizophrenia and instead recorded the condition as "Altered Mental Status Unspecified". No medical certificate establishing the alleged diagnosis was placed before the Court.
The Bench also considered the wife's educational qualifications and her previous employment, noting that there was no evidence establishing the alleged history of psychiatric treatment since childhood or concealment of any such condition before marriage.
The Court held:
"This Court is conscious of the settled proposition of law that every mental disorder or psychiatric ailment does not ipso facto furnish a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act."
After independently examining the evidence and the Family Court's findings, the Jharkhand High Court concluded that the husband had failed to establish either cruelty or the statutory ground of mental disorder required for divorce.
The Bench found no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's decision and dismissed the husband's appeal, leaving the earlier judgment refusing divorce undisturbed.
