The Patna High Court has declined to interfere with a Family Court order rejecting a mutual consent divorce petition, holding that the statutory requirement of living separately for at least one year was not fulfilled.
In a judgment delivered on April 24, 2026, the division bench emphasized that compliance with the conditions under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act is essential before granting divorce by mutual consent.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between Kumari Vagisha and her husband Kumar Sangam, who had married on April 28, 2021. The couple later faced differences and began living separately from March 2022.
They jointly filed a petition before the Family Court in Sheohar seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Alongside the petition, they also entered into a settlement agreement covering permanent alimony, maintenance for their minor daughter, and withdrawal of pending cases.
However, the Family Court rejected their plea on June 6, 2023. The court relied on the husband’s statement that the couple had resumed marital relations on March 15, 2023-just weeks before filing the divorce petition on May 11, 2023.
At the outset, the High Court allowed an application seeking condonation of delay of around 410 days in filing the appeal. The bench noted that sufficient reasons had been provided and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
The High Court closely examined the requirement under Section 13(B), which mandates that both parties must have been living separately for at least one year immediately before filing the divorce petition.
Clarifying the meaning of “living separately,” the bench observed:
“The expression does not necessarily mean living at different places. It signifies that the parties are not living as husband and wife and there is a complete cessation of marital obligations.”
The court noted that while the couple had claimed in their petition that they had been living separately for over a year, the husband’s own statement contradicted this assertion.
“The deposition of the husband clearly indicates that marital relations were resumed on 15.03.2023. This is inconsistent with the claim of continuous separation for one year,” the bench observed.
The judges further pointed out that the requirement under the law is not merely physical separation but a continuous breakdown of marital relations without interruption.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the Family Court had erred by relying heavily on the husband’s oral statement while ignoring the joint petition and affidavits filed by both parties.
It was contended that the statement regarding marital relations was made casually and should not outweigh the written agreement and pleadings.
The appellant also submitted that the court failed to properly consider her version before dismissing the petition.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the Family Court had rightly relied on the husband’s admission made during inquiry.
“The statutory condition of one year’s separation must be satisfied in substance. The inconsistency between the pleadings and the statement given in court cannot be ignored,” the bench stated.
Finding no legal infirmity in the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
However, taking note of a joint compromise petition filed during the pendency of the appeal, the court granted liberty to both parties to approach the Family Court again.
The bench directed them to file a fresh petition under Section 13(B) within four weeks and instructed the Family Court to decide it independently, without being influenced by its earlier order.
case details
Case Title: Kumari Vagisha vs Kumar Sangam
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 807 of 2024
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Decision Date: 24 April 2026
