The Patna High Court has reiterated that the mandatory one-year separation under Section 13(B) must be genuinely observed for granting mutual consent divorce. It upheld rejection of the couple’s plea after the husband admitted conjugal relations during separation.
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that the one-year separation period prescribed for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is mandatory.
A division bench of Justice Nani Tagia and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to reject a joint divorce petition after the husband admitted that he had established conjugal relations within the statutory separation period.
However, taking note of a fresh compromise that was filed during the appeal, the High Court granted the parties liberty to approach the Family Court again.
The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on April 28, 2021, following Hindu rites. A daughter was born on March 19, 2022. After the birth, the couple’s relationship deteriorated, and they began living separately from March 2022 onwards.
Earlier, On May 11, 2023, the parties jointly filed a petition under Section 13(B) before the Family Court at Sheohar seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The proposed arrangement included permanent alimony of Rs.20 lakhs for the wife and Rs.2 lakhs for the maintenance of the daughter.
The Family Court, however, rejected the petition on June 6, 2023, holding that during the first motion the husband deposed that he had established conjugal relation with the appellant on March 15, 2023, i.e., less than two months before the divorce petition was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition solely on the basis of the husband’s oral deposition.
It was argued that the Family Court failed to properly record or consider the wife’s statement and ignored the specific averments made in the joint petition and affidavits where the parties had stated that they had been living separately for over a year.
Also Read:Husband Giving Time, Money To Mother Not Domestic Violence: Court to Wife
The wife’s counsel further submitted that the husband’s in-court statement was made impulsively, allegedly in a huff, and should not have been treated as outweighing the written declarations.
The High Court conducted a detailed examination of Section 13(B), which allows a mutual consent divorce petition to be presented on the basis that the parties have been living separately for a period of one year or more.
In explaining the requirement of separation, 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 the principle to the case, the Court noted that the husband identified as Applicant No. 1 (AW-1) admitted that marital obligations were fulfilled on March 15, 2023. Since the petition was filed on May 11, 2023, the High Court held that the condition of a continuous one-year separation immediately preceding the filing of the petition was not satisfied.
The Court also found that the averments in the petition were inconsistent with the husband’s deposition.
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s reasoning was justified and legal and therefore initially dismissed the miscellaneous appeal.
ALSO READ: Income Tax Exemption Denied for Same-Sex Couples: Bombay High Court
That said, the Court took into account the joint compromise petition filed on February 17, 2026 while the appeal was still pending.
To facilitate a peaceful settlement, the Court issued these directions:
The parties must go before the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Sheohar and file a new petition under Section 13(B) within four weeks.
The Family Court should hear and decide this new petition strictly as per the law. The Court also instructed that the matter be decided without being prejudiced by the previous judgment dated 06.06.2023.
The High Court also condoned a 410-day delay in filing the appeal through I.A. No. 01 of 2024 before pronouncing the judgment.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
Case Title: Village Gobinapur vs. Kumar Sangam, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 807 of 2024