Section 13(1A) in HMA 1955:

Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground—

(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.

Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides two additional grounds on which either spouse may seek divorce. It applies when a marriage has not resumed normal cohabitation after a decree for judicial separation or when conjugal rights have not been restored after a court decree.

Grounds for Divorce Under Section 13(1A)

Under Section 13(1A)(i), either spouse may file for divorce if there has been no resumption of cohabitation for one year or more after a decree of judicial separation.

Under Section 13(1A)(ii), divorce may be sought if there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for one year or more after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

The provision applies equally to husbands and wives. However, obtaining a divorce is not automatic merely because the prescribed period has elapsed. The court must consider the evidence and the statutory restrictions under the Act, including Section 23.

Important Judgments

1. Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar (1977): The Supreme Court held that a spouse seeking divorce under Section 13(1A) must satisfy the legal requirements. Mere failure to resume cohabitation does not automatically establish that the petitioner is taking advantage of their own wrong.

2. Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda (2001): The Supreme Court clarified that Section 13(1A) does not remove the court’s obligation to consider Section 23. A divorce petition must satisfy the applicable statutory conditions.

3. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9, concerning restitution of conjugal rights, and discussed its relationship with matrimonial remedies under the Act.

Conclusion

Section 13(1A) provides a legal remedy where judicial separation or a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has failed to restore marital life. Anyone considering divorce under this provision should consult a qualified family-law advocate to assess the decree, relevant timelines and applicable legal requirements.