Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lists the grounds of divorce open to either spouse. Section 13(2) then does something different: it gives the wife, and the wife alone, four further grounds. They are protective provisions, built around situations in which the law recognised that a wife may be trapped in a marriage through no fault of her own — an earlier subsisting marriage of the husband, grave sexual offences by him, a maintenance order followed by long separation, or a marriage performed in childhood. This explainer walks through each ground and how it is used.
Why the wife gets extra grounds
The general grounds in Section 13(1) — adultery, cruelty, desertion and the rest — treat husband and wife identically. Section 13(2) departs from that symmetry deliberately. Each of its four grounds answers a specific historical or social reality: polygamous marriages contracted before the Act came into force, sexual offences that strike at the foundation of the marital relationship, husbands who neither maintain their wives nor live with them, and child marriages solemnised before the bride could meaningfully consent. The provision is protective legislation and is read in that spirit.
Ground (i): A pre-Act subsisting marriage of the husband
Where the marriage was solemnised before the Hindu Marriage Act commenced in 1955, and the husband had married again before that commencement — or an earlier wife of the husband was alive when the later marriage took place — the wife of either marriage may seek divorce, provided the other wife is alive at the time the petition is presented. The Act made Hindu marriage strictly monogamous only prospectively, so this ground gave wives of older polygamous marriages an exit. Seven decades on, it is largely of historical interest, but it remains on the statute book.
Ground (ii): Rape, sodomy or bestiality by the husband
The wife may seek divorce where the husband has, since the solemnisation of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality. The conduct may be directed at the wife or at a third person; what matters is that it occurred after the marriage. Although a criminal conviction is the most straightforward proof, the divorce petition is a civil proceeding, and the Family Court decides the question on the preponderance of probabilities based on the evidence led before it. The ground reflects the view that such conduct makes it unreasonable to require the wife to continue the relationship.
Ground (iii): A maintenance decree plus a year of continued separation
Where a decree of maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or an order under Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — has been passed against the husband while the wife was living apart, and cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards since that decree or order, the wife may petition for divorce. This is examined in detail below.
Ground (iv): Option of puberty
Where the marriage was solemnised before the wife attained the age of fifteen, she may repudiate the marriage after attaining fifteen but before attaining eighteen, and then seek divorce on the basis of that repudiation — whether or not the marriage was consummated. The repudiation should be expressed clearly, by conduct or declaration, within the statutory window; the divorce petition itself may follow later.
Ground (iii) in practice: a route out of a dead marriage
Ground (iii) deserves particular attention because it converts two facts that frequently exist together — a maintenance order against the husband and long-standing separation — into a complete ground for divorce, without the wife having to prove cruelty, desertion or any other matrimonial fault afresh.
The logic is straightforward. A maintenance decree or order is passed only where the husband has neglected or refused to maintain the wife and she has a lawful justification for living apart. If, even after being ordered to pay, the husband does not resume cohabitation — and a year or more passes with the parties still apart — the marriage has demonstrably broken down. The statute lets the wife draw the legal conclusion from that reality. The requirements are:
- a decree under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, or an order under Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), passed against the husband;
- the parties were living apart when it was passed, notwithstanding the subsisting marriage;
- no resumption of cohabitation for one year or upwards after the decree or order.
The one-year clock runs from the decree or order, not from the original separation. Stray meetings or attempts at settlement do not by themselves amount to resumption of cohabitation, which connotes actually living together again as spouses.
The child marriage ground and the 2006 Act
Ground (iv) predates the modern child marriage framework and operates alongside it. Under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, a party who was a child at the time of the marriage may petition to have the marriage annulled; for a bride, the petition may be filed up to two years after attaining majority, and the court granting annulment can also order maintenance and residence for her and make provision for children. A wife married in childhood may therefore have two distinct paths: repudiation followed by divorce under Section 13(2)(iv) HMA, or annulment under the 2006 Act. Which is appropriate depends on her age, the timeline, and the relief she needs.
Procedure: an ordinary divorce petition
There is nothing procedurally special about a Section 13(2) petition. It is presented to the Family Court having jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act — which, importantly, includes the place where the wife is residing on the date of presentation. The petition is tried like any other divorce case: pleadings, evidence, cross-examination and judgment, with the usual bars under Section 23 (such as taking advantage of one's own wrong) applying. Interim maintenance and litigation expenses can be sought under Section 24 during the pendency of the petition.
Section 13(2) is a reminder that the statutory scheme is not perfectly symmetrical, and deliberately so. For a wife whose situation fits one of these four grounds, the provision can offer a cleaner and more certain path to divorce than contested fault grounds.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the husband need a criminal conviction before the wife can rely on the ground of rape, sodomy or bestiality?
Section 13(2)(ii) requires that the husband has, since the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality. A criminal conviction is the clearest proof, but the Family Court decides the divorce petition on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, so the wife may establish the conduct through evidence led in the divorce proceeding itself.
How does a maintenance order become a ground for divorce?
Under Section 13(2)(iii), where a decree under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or an order under Section 144 BNSS, formerly Section 125 CrPC, has been passed against the husband while the parties were living apart, and cohabitation has not resumed for one year or more after that decree or order, the wife may present a divorce petition on that basis alone.
What is the option of puberty under Hindu law?
Section 13(2)(iv) allows a wife whose marriage was solemnised before she turned fifteen to repudiate the marriage after attaining fifteen but before turning eighteen, and then seek divorce on that repudiation. It applies whether or not the marriage was consummated. The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 separately allows a child bride to seek annulment of the marriage.
Where is a petition under Section 13(2) filed?
In the Family Court having jurisdiction, exactly like any other divorce petition. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act fixes venue by reference to where the marriage was solemnised, where the respondent resides, where the parties last resided together, or where the wife herself resides on the date of presentation, which is often the most convenient option for her.