Jharkhand High Court: Mental Illness Alone Is Not Cruelty Under Hindu Marriage Act

The news

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an ex parte divorce decree, ruling that mental illness alone does not constitute matrimonial cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Akhil Kumar allowed the wife's appeal against a Koderma Family Court order that had granted divorce to her husband on grounds of cruelty. The court held that a spouse's refusal of treatment also cannot automatically be treated as cruelty without examining the circumstances and reliable evidence.

The case involved a marriage solemnised in 2019. The husband had alleged that his wife's behaviour changed after the wedding, that a medical examination in Kanke, Ranchi, identified schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and seizures, and that she refused prescribed medicines. After panchayat meetings failed to resolve the dispute, he sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Koderma Family Court passed the ex parte decree on 5 January. The High Court found that the husband had not produced the treating doctor or any medical expert to testify about the alleged illness, its severity or its effect on married life. The court said a spouse's statement alone cannot establish these matters and that treatment refusal must be assessed in its factual context rather than treated as cruelty by itself. The bench set aside the family court's decree and allowed the wife's appeal.

What is cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act?

Cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the Act does not define the term. The Supreme Court has interpreted it as conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that living together is harmful or injurious. Under Section 13(1)(iii) of the same Act, mental disorder is a separate ground for divorce in specified circumstances, including when it is of such a kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. The burden of proving cruelty lies on the spouse who alleges it, and courts require clear, cogent and specific evidence including medical testimony when a mental disorder is cited. The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) provided illustrative instances of mental cruelty, emphasising that each case must be decided on its own facts and that a single act or a series of acts can amount to cruelty depending on the context.

What did the High Court find lacking in the evidence?

The High Court observed that the husband had not presented the doctor who examined or treated the wife, nor any medical expert, to establish the alleged illness, its seriousness and its impact on married life. The court said a court cannot declare a person mentally ill based solely on a spouse's statement or allegations. It also noted that the circumstances of treatment refusal and the actual effect on the marital relationship must be examined, rather than treating refusal automatically as cruelty.

What were the wife's counter-allegations?

The wife disputed the husband's claims and alleged that he and his family had demanded additional dowry. She said she was assaulted and expelled from her matrimonial home on 16 February 2025 and has been living with her daughter at her parental home without financial support from her husband. These were her allegations and were not established by the family court decree.