Can a husband obtain divorce after claiming that his wife suffers from an incurable mental illness? The Jharkhand High Court examined whether such allegations, without proper medical evidence, can legally end a marriage.
JHARKHAND:The Jharkhand High Court rejected the plea after finding that the allegations were unsupported by proper medical evidence and that the husband had left the wife at her parental home.
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a Family Court order refusing divorce to a husband who alleged that his wife suffered from an incurable mental disorder and had deserted him.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad ruled that a spouse having “some health issues” cannot, by itself, become a valid ground for ending a marriage. The judgment was passed on July 21, 2026.
The Court explained that married life includes both happiness and hardship. Illness may occur without a person’s fault or control, and spouses are generally expected to support each other during difficult periods.
The couple was married on January 30, 2015. According to the husband, he later noticed that his wife was suffering from a mental health condition and did not properly understand the husband-wife “relationship”.
He alleged that her condition was “chronic” and “incurable”, making her unfit to continue married life. He further claimed that important facts about her health had been hidden from him before the marriage.
The husband stated that he informed his in-laws about her alleged physical and mental condition. According to him, they reacted angrily, threatened him and returned without resolving the issue.
He also claimed that he took his wife for psychiatric and medical treatment in several cities. He said that different specialist doctors examined her and informed him that the illness could not be cured.
Based on these allegations, he approached the Family Court seeking divorce on the grounds of mental disorder and desertion.
The wife disputed his claims. She stated that they lived happily for around three months after the marriage, but her husband and his family later began demanding additional dowry.
She alleged that her father deposited Rs 1 lakh into her husband’s account so that she could live peacefully in her matrimonial home. However, according to her, further demands continued, and she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty when those demands were not fulfilled.
The record showed that the husband left her at her parental home on July 10, 2017. The wife alleged that he never made any genuine effort to bring her back.
After examining the evidence, the Family Court rejected the divorce petition. The husband then challenged that decision before the Jharkhand High Court.
The High Court explained that desertion must continue for at least two years immediately before a divorce petition is filed. It also requires proof that one spouse intentionally and unjustifiably abandoned the other.
In this case, the wife had lived in the matrimonial home for nearly two and a half years. The Court found that it was the husband who had left her at her parental home and later refused to take her back.
The Bench observed that the husband had “dismantled” the matrimonial home and could not obtain divorce by relying upon a situation created by his own conduct.
During the Family Court proceedings, the wife had expressed her “readiness” and “willingness” to resume married life. The husband, however, refused to take her back without establishing a legally sufficient reason.
The High Court consequently held that the husband had “withdrawn” from the wife without just cause. Therefore, the allegation of desertion against her was not proved.
The Court also found serious evidentiary gaps in the allegation of mental illness. Despite claiming that his wife had been examined by several doctors across different cities, the husband did not produce convincing medical evidence before the Court.
He neither examined any treating doctor nor called any hospital employee to support his claim that the wife had a serious and incurable mental disorder.
The Court further noted that the husband had “ample” opportunity to interact with the woman before marriage and had married her after satisfying himself about the relationship.
The Bench held that both the alleged mental disorder and desertion were unsupported by “concrete” evidence. It therefore found no legal reason to interfere with the Family Court’s decision.
Advocate Arvind Kumar Choudhary, representing the husband, argued that the Family Court had failed to properly consider evidence showing that the husband suffered cruelty because of the wife’s alleged abnormal behaviour.
Advocate Shailendra Jit, representing the wife, supported the Family Court’s findings. He argued that the husband’s allegations were “absolutely illegal” and “uncalled” for and that his conduct was never directed towards “salvaging” the marriage.
The ruling underlines an important principle applicable to both husbands and wives that serious matrimonial allegations cannot succeed merely because they are repeatedly stated. Claims involving mental illness, cruelty or desertion must be proved through reliable evidence.
At the same time, the case highlights a harsh reality faced by many husbands in matrimonial litigation. A man may claim that he arranged repeated medical treatment, spent money and endured serious problems inside the marriage, but unless every prescription, hospital record and doctor’s opinion is formally proved, his suffering may carry little legal value.
The High Court ultimately held that the husband failed to establish the statutory grounds for divorce and therefore upheld the dismissal of his petition. The message for men is clear: personal suffering is not enough in court unless it is documented, preserved and converted into legally admissible evidence.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION
| LAW/SECTION | WHAT IT MEANS | APPLICATION IN THIS CASE |
| Section 13(1)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Permits divorce where the respondent is incurably of unsound mind or has suffered continuously or intermittently from a mental disorder of such a kind and extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them. | The husband alleged that the wife had a chronic and incurable mental disorder. The Court found that he failed to establish the allegation through reliable medical or expert evidence. |
| Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows divorce where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty after the marriage. Cruelty may be physical or mental but must be sufficiently serious and proved through evidence. | The husband reportedly argued that the wife’s alleged abnormal behaviour caused cruelty. The Court found no sufficient evidence justifying interference with the Family Court’s conclusion. |
| Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows divorce where the respondent has deserted the petitioner continuously for at least two years immediately before the divorce petition. | The Court found that the wife had not deserted the husband. Rather, the husband had left her at her parental home and refused to take her back. |
| Explanation to Section 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Defines desertion as abandonment of one spouse by the other without reasonable cause, consent or against the wishes of the deserted spouse. It includes wilful neglect. | The wife expressed readiness and willingness to resume married life. This weakened the husband’s claim that she intended to permanently abandon the marriage. |
| Section 23(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Prevents a court from granting matrimonial relief where the petitioner is taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability. | The Court reportedly held that the husband had dismantled the matrimonial home and could not benefit from the situation created by his own conduct. |
| Section 19(1), Family Courts Act, 1984 | Provides a right of appeal to the High Court against a non-interlocutory judgment or order of a Family Court, subject to statutory conditions. | The husband invoked the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction after the Family Court dismissed his divorce petition. |
| Section 19(3), Family Courts Act, 1984 | Ordinarily requires an appeal from a Family Court judgment or order to be filed within 30 days. | This governs limitation for the First Appeal, although the news report does not discuss whether any delay occurred. |
| Section 7, Family Courts Act, 1984 | Gives Family Courts jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes, including divorce, nullity, restitution of conjugal rights and related matrimonial reliefs. | The original divorce proceedings were decided by the competent Family Court. |
| Section 20, Family Courts Act, 1984 | Gives the Family Courts Act overriding effect where its provisions are inconsistent with another law. | It supports the specialised jurisdiction and procedure governing Family Court proceedings. |
| Sections 101–103, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Place the burden of proving a disputed fact upon the person asserting it. The Evidence Act was applicable when the original matrimonial evidence was recorded. | The husband asserted mental illness, cruelty and desertion; therefore, the primary burden to prove those grounds rested upon him. |
| Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Makes expert opinion relevant where the court must form an opinion on science, medicine or another specialised field. | A psychiatrist or treating doctor could have provided expert evidence concerning the nature, severity and effect of the alleged mental disorder. No such witness was reportedly examined. |
| Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Allows courts to draw reasonable presumptions from ordinary human conduct and the circumstances of a case. | The absence of treating doctors and reliable medical records could be considered while evaluating whether the allegation of serious mental illness was proved. |
| Order XLI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Regulates civil appeals, including examination of the trial court record, appellate findings and powers of the appellate court. | The High Court examined whether the Family Court’s appreciation of evidence required interference. |
| Section 21, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Makes the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, subject to the Act and applicable High Court rules. | It forms the procedural basis for conducting and deciding the matrimonial suit and appeal. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi |
| Case type | First Appeal arising from dismissal of a matrimonial suit |
| Case Title | Husband v.Wife |
| Appellant | Husband |
| Respondent | Wife |
| Decision date reported | July 21, 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad |
| Counsel for husband/appellant | Advocate Arvind Kumar Choudhary |
| Counsel for wife/respondent | Advocate Shailendra Jit |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A man’s statement alone is rarely enough in matrimonial court.
- Medical allegations must be backed by doctors, reports and hospital records.
- Undocumented suffering is often treated as unproved suffering.
- A husband must preserve evidence before seeking divorce.
- In marriage litigation, emotion does not win cases—documentation does.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
