The High Court of Judicature at Patna has underscored the mandatory nature of the one-year separation period required for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A division bench comprising Justice Nani Tagia and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey upheld a Family Court’s decision to reject a joint divorce petition after the husband admitted to establishing conjugal relations within the statutory separation period. However, in light of a fresh compromise filed during the appeal, the Court has granted the parties liberty to approach the Family Court again.
Background of the Case
The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on April 28, 2021, according to Hindu rituals. A daughter was born from the wedlock on March 19, 2022. Following the birth, the relationship deteriorated, leading to the parties residing separately from March 2022.
On May 11, 2023, the couple filed a joint petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Sheohar, for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The agreement included a permanent alimony of ₹20 lakhs for the wife and ₹2 lakhs as maintenance for the daughter. However, on June 6, 2023, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheohar, rejected the petition. The rejection was grounded on the fact that during the first motion, the husband (respondent) deposed that he had established “conjugal relation” with the appellant on March 15, 2023—less than two months before the filing of the divorce petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Family Court erred by dismissing the suit based solely on the oral statement of the husband. It was contended that the court failed to record the appellant’s statement and disregarded the specific averments in the joint petition and the affidavits, which stated that the parties had been living separately for more than a year. The counsel suggested that the husband’s oral statement in court was made “in a huff” to “foist the progress of the divorce suit” and should not have outweighed the written declarations.
The Court’s Analysis of Section 13(B)
The High Court meticulously analyzed Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which stipulates that a petition for divorce may be presented on the ground that the parties “have been living separately for a period of one year or more.”
The Court observed:
“‘Living separately’ means not living as husband and wife, regardless of physical residence. Parties may live under the same roof yet be separated in law, or live in different places yet continue a marital relationship. The essential requirement is a complete cessation of marital obligations, coupled with an intention not to resume cohabitation, for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding the petition.”
Applying this to the facts, the Court noted that the husband, as Applicant No. 1 (AW-1), admitted to fulfilling marital obligations on March 15, 2023. Since the petition was filed on May 11, 2023, the requirement of a continuous one-year separation “immediately preceding the presentation of the petition” was not met. The Court found the averments in the petition to be “divergent with the deposition” of the husband.
Decision and Directions
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s reasoning was “justified and legal” and initially dismissed the miscellaneous appeal. However, the Court took note of a joint compromise petition filed by the parties on February 17, 2026, while the appeal was pending.
To facilitate a resolution, the Court directed:
- The parties are to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sheohar, with a fresh petition under Section 13(B) of the Act within four weeks.
- The Family Court is directed to hear and decide this fresh petition in accordance with the law.
- The lower court must decide the matter “without being prejudiced by the previous judgment dated 06.06.2023.”
The Court also condoned a 410-day delay in filing the appeal via I.A. No. 01 of 2024 before delivering the judgment.
