HC denies husband divorce from mentally ill wife

The Patna High Court on April 7, 2025, ruled that simply claiming that a wife has schizophrenia, a type of mental illness, doesn’t constitute adequate grounds for divorce, as the severity of the said illness needs to be proved also. The high court further stated that the Hindu Marriage Act does not recognise all mental abnormalities as grounds for granting a divorce decree.

This case refers to the story of a husband who married in 2005 and was able to live with his wife for about 1 year and 11 months in total. They began living separately in 2007, and now it has been more than 18 years of such isolated existence. The husband alleged that he can’t live with a woman who has a serious mental illness and a history of beating him, sometimes using knives and spoons.

The wife, on the other hand, contended that she is a spiritual lady and has no mental illness and wished to live with him as husband and wife. The husband felt cheated, believing that his wife’s parents concealed her mental illness from him before their marriage. In addition, despite being married for nearly 2 years, he had never truly connected with his wife. Instead, he alleged that he was physically attacked multiple times by his wife without any reason. So, in 2010, a divorce case was filed in the Alipore District Court, Kolkata.

Later on, this divorce case was transferred to the Nawada Family Court, Bihar, via a Supreme Court order dated October 2, 2010. After this an appeal was filed in the Patna High Court, as the family court refused to grant divorce to the husband. Ultimately, both the Nawada Family Court and the Patna High Court held that, in this case, the husband can’t get a divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Read on to find out why both courts denied the husband’s request for divorce from his wife, who allegedly has a mental illness (schizophrenia), and they have been living separately for about 18 years. The following presents the legal analysis and reasoning used by judges in this case to arrive at their conclusion.

How did this case start?
According to the order of the Patna High Court dated April 7, 2025, here are the details:

• On May 21, 2005, the husband and wife married in Akbarpur, Bihar, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
• After the marriage, the husband and wife started living together in a rented apartment in Kolkata for 1 year and 11 months.
• Immediately after the marriage, the husband found some abnormal behaviour in attitude and in movement of his wife, which gradually intensified.
• Subsequently, the wife was treated in the department of psychiatry in Ramkrishna Mission Sewa Pratisthan, where the doctor diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia, one type of mental disease or disorder.
• On November 26, 2006, the wife’s mother came to Kolkata along with two of their relatives and took all her articles and belongings. Since then, she has been living at her parental home.
• The husband filed a divorce case in 2010, and the Nawada Family Court passed its judgement on November 22, 2018, denying divorce to the husband.
• An appeal against the order of the Nawada Family Court was filed in the Patna High Court in 2018.
• The Patna High Court passed its judgement on April 7, 2025, denying divorce to the husband and upheld the Nawada Family Court’s judgement.

Why did the Nawada Family Court deny the husband’s divorce petition that was filed on the grounds of cruelty?
According to the order of the Patna High Court, here are the details:

The Nawada Family Court said it would answer the following questions:

(i) Whether the case as framed is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action?
(iii) Whether the defendant committed cruelty against the petitioner, and due to the said conduct, petitioner has been living a deserted life for two years before filing the petition?
(iv) Whether the defendant have sufficient grounds to refuse to give a divorce against the petitioner?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief or other reliefs sought?

The Nawada Family Court answers: “The husband failed to prove that his wife had committed any cruelty with him. Even the husband’s parents have not been examined as witnesses. There is no evidence on record to show that the wife has deserted the husband. The husband himself has committed dowry torture and abandoned the wife; therefore, he cannot take advantage of his own mistake. The husband, except for the allegation, has not adduced any document to show that the wife is suffering from schizophrenia or any other mental disorder.”

Husband’s lawyers said before Patna High Court: Wife’s parents hid her mental condition before marriage
The husband’s lawyer said before the Patna High Court: “The marriage was solemnised in 2005 and they are living separately since more than 18 years having no regard to the feelings and emotions of the parties and their matrimonial bond is beyond repair and by refusing to sever that tie may lead to mental cruelty.”

“In cross-examination of the wife, she herself stated that she lived in her sasural (matrimonial home) for about one year, which shows that, admittedly, there was desertion on the part of respondent-wife. Furthermore, it was submitted that there was concealment of the mental condition of the wife.”

Wife’s lawyers said husband failed to prove that she has any mental disorder
The wife’s lawyer said before the Patna High Court: The husband has failed to prove that the wife is suffering from any mental disease or disorder. Moreover, it is submitted that the wife intends to live with the husband, as earlier they had always resided as husband and wife in Kolkata. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is justified, and no interference is required by the Patna High Court.

The Patna HC observes the husband filed a divorce application on grounds of cruelty and desertion, but the main ground taken for divorce is the wife’s mental disease or disorder
The Patna High Court noted the following observation:

• It appears from the petition that an application for divorce has been filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) of the Act, i.e., on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. However, the main ground taken for divorce is that the wife is suffering from a mental disease or disorder (schizophrenia) and a permanent disability in her leg, and due to her abnormal behaviour, the husband does not like to continue the matrimonial life with her.
• From perusal of the record, the question which this court has to decide is whether the respondent is suffering from schizophrenia or other mental disorders of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with respondent-wife or not?

The Patna High Court refers to the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court precedents about Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
The Patna High Court referred to the cases:

Supreme Court: Ram Narain Gupta v. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta reported in (1988) 4 SCC 247 and Kollam Chandra Sekhar vs. Kollam Padma Lath.

Calcutta High Court: Smt. Rita Roy v. Sitesh Chandra reported in AIR 1982 Cal
138.

In all the judgments mentioned above and referred by the Patna High Court, it was observed that under Section 13(1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, either of spouse(s) can apply for dissolution of marriage in case the other spouse is of unsound mind or suffering from a mental disorder.

The Supreme Court precedent said if a schizophrenic patient complies with treatment and has good family support, then he/she can continue their marital relationship

The Patna High Court highlighted what the Supreme Court said about Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
The Supreme Court set this precedent in an earlier judgement:

• “….in our considered view, the contents of the report as stated by the team of doctors do not support the case of the appellant that the respondent is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia in order to grant the decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii).
• The report states that the respondent, although suffering from “illness of schizophrenic type”, does not show symptoms of psychotic illness at present and has responded well to the treatment from the acute phases, and her symptoms are fairly under control with medication which had been administered to her.
• It was further stated that if there is good compliance with treatment coupled with good social and family support, a schizophrenic patient can continue their marital relationship. In view of the aforesaid findings and reasons recorded, we have to hold that the patient is not suffering from the symptoms of schizophrenia as detailed above.”

The Patna High Court says divorce can be granted on the basis of proof of the degree of mental illness and not merely by stating that a spouse suffers from mental illness
The Patna High Court said:

• It appears that the ground of a spouse suffering from schizophrenia, by itself, is not sufficient for the grant of divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act, as it may involve various degree of mental illness.
• The law provides that a spouse, in order to prove a ground of divorce on the ground of mental illness, ought to prove that the spouse is suffering from a serious case of schizophrenia which must also be supported by medical reports and proved by cogent evidence before the court that the disease is of such a kind and degree that the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with the wife.
• Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act does not make the mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify dissolution of marriage.
• The contents in which the ideas of unsoundness of mind and mental disorder occur in section as ground for dissolution of a marriage require assessment of the degree of mental disorder, and its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.
• All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for the grant of a decree. The burden of proof of existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse who bases his or her claim on such a medical condition.

“In the present case, the husband has made a bald allegation in the Matrimonial Suit that wife is suffering from mental illness, and her behavior is abnormal, but he has failed to adduce any documentary evidence thereto,” said Patna High Court.

The Patna High Court final judgement: Husband is denied divorce as he could not prove wife’s mental illness
The Patna High Court said: “On all counts, keeping in view the discussions made, we find that there is no merit in the present appeal warranting any interference in the impugned judgment. The learned Nawada Family Court has rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of the husband seeking divorce.”

Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T JURIS, a law firm, says: The Patna High Court, while relying on various Supreme Court judgements, has reiterated that the degree of mental disorder is of utmost significance in each case, meaning thereby that if the degree of mental disorder is such that it cannot be cured or mitigated through medical intervention/treatment, only then it may form a ground for the dissolution of marriage. In my opinion, if despite the medical treatment the affected partner is unable to perform the conjugal/marital relations with their spouse, then it may become grounds for dissolution of marriage and not otherwise.

Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle, says: “This judgment reaffirms a crucial principle that the mere existence of a mental disorder, including conditions like schizophrenia, cannot be used as an automatic justification for dissolving a marriage. To seek divorce on these grounds, the spouse seeking divorce must provide concrete medical evidence and clinical history proving that the condition is incurable and so severe that the spouse seeking divorce cannot be expected to live with the other spouse.

Desai adds: This judgment has the impact of protecting women from being unfairly targeted or discarded under the guise of mental illness. It acts as a deterrent against the misuse of mental health claims in divorce proceedings—a tactic often employed to evade marital responsibilities, exert pressure for unlawful dowry, or deny women their rightful claims to maintenance and child custody.”

The Patna High Court explains the reason behind denial of divorce to the husband
The high court said:
● The husband did not produce the medical documentary and oral evidence of the doctor who is treating the schizophrenia of the wife.
● Also, the husband has failed to prove the defect in the leg of the wife, as she freely moved before the Family Court. In this way, all the allegations made by him in the divorce petition lack ingredients of Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act.
● From the perusal of evidence available on record, it is evident that the marriage took place in the year 2005 and the husband himself made allegations that her behavior is unusual, and she is suffering from mental sickness as since the beginning, she made unusual behavior like attacking the appellant-husband by spoon or knife, etc.
● The husband has failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the wife suffers from schizophrenia or any leg deficiency.
● Additionally, no specific plea regarding cruelty has been made, and vague allegations cannot constitute grounds for divorce. Furthermore, the husband himself abandoned the wife and cannot take advantage of his own wrong to seek relief.
● The husband having deserted the wife cannot claim divorce on grounds of cruelty or other allegations when he himself is at fault.

Arnaz Hathiram, Digital Media Professional, says: "Both the lower court and high court have rejected divorce to the husband in this case, mainly due to absence of medical certificate to prove his claims of wife's mental and physical condition. However, parties were married in 2005, lived together only for a year approximately and have been living apart since nearly two decades. The rejection of divorce is based on the legality of the matter. However, for all practical purposes, the union is dead. A fit case for granting divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution citing Irretrievable Breakdown In Marriage and allowing both parties to move on and live peacefully."

Some key legal takeaways from this judgement
ET Wealth Online has asked various legal experts about some key legal takeaways from this judgement, here's what they said:

Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle: The key takeaway from the judgment is that it places mental health at the forefront of legal discourse in matrimonial matters. It reaffirm that mental illness, when proven to be incurable or fraudulently undisclosed at the time of marriage, constitutes a justifiable ground for seeking dissolution of the marriage. At the same time, it identifies that not all mental abnormalities qualify as legitimate grounds for divorce.

Importantly, the burden of proof of existence of requisite degree of mental disorder is on the spouse invoking mental illness as a ground for divorce. It is their responsibility to establish, through credible medical evidence and clinical records, that the condition meets the legal threshold. This legal clarity serves a dual purpose. First, it prevents the misuse of mental health claims as a means to escape marital obligations or deny rights to women. Second, in genuine cases, it offers a protective mechanism for all parties involved—especially vulnerable children—ensuring their safety and well-being when one parent suffers from a severe mental disorder.

Ruchita Datta, Partner, D&T JURIS: The legal position with respect to mental disorder as a ground for dissolution of marriage has been clarified by the High Court to be such that the mental disorder must be of such degree that it becomes untreatable and incurable, and the partner is unable to fulfil their marital obligations. The most important takeaway from this judgment is that severity of the mental condition is of utmost significance in deciding entitlement to divorce in such cases. The courts of our country always endeavour to preserve the sanctity of marriage which is considered as a sacrament under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Divorce should be granted when and only when it becomes the last resort available.

Ashutosh K. Srivastava, Counsel, SKV Law Offices: By dismissing the husband's appeal for divorce, the Court has emphasized that serious allegations—such as mental illness, cruelty, or desertion—must be supported by credible and concrete evidence. The husband’s failure to produce any medical records or expert testimony to substantiate his claims of schizophrenia or physical disability in his wife highlighted the importance of providing substantial evidence when moving an appeal for divorce on the grounds of mental illness, cruelty or desertion.

This decision also reinforces the principle that a party cannot seek relief under the Hindu Marriage Act by relying on vague or unproven accusations. Furthermore, the High Court noted the Family Court’s findings suggesting that the husband had abandoned the wife previously and had filed a suit for divorce subsequently. The High Court’s Judgement makes it clear that one cannot take advantage of one’s own wrongdoing to dissolve a marriage either.

One of the primary legal takeaways from this case is the reaffirmation that mental illness, including schizophrenia, must meet a stringent threshold to qualify as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It must be shown—through medical documentation and expert testimony—that the mental disorder is of such a nature and severity that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The mere presence of a disorder, or generalized allegations of abnormal behaviour, is not sufficient.

Additionally, the judgment clarifies that the burden of proof lies entirely on the petitioner. Unsupported claims of cruelty or desertion will not meet the statutory threshold required to grant divorce. The ruling reflects a careful, fact-driven approach to matrimonial law, consistent with existing Supreme Court precedents.

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris: Some key legal takeaways from this judgement are : a) Burden of Proof lies upon the Petitioner who is alleging mental disorder and must support it with documentary evidence.
b) The Petitioner must demonstrate consistent conduct or prolonged separation by the other party.
c) The Court reiterated that a party who has deserted or mistreated their spouse cannot seek divorce by citing abandonment or cruelty. The law does not permit a wrongdoer to benefit from their misconduct.
d) As reiterated from Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta and Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, the mental disorder must be of such intensity that continuing the marital relationship becomes impossible. Every abnormality or eccentricity does not qualify for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii).
e) The judgment reinforces the requirement that parties must provide documentary and oral evidence to support their claims, especially in sensitive matters like mental health and matrimonial cruelty.


( Originally published on Apr 12, 2025 )