Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementHindu Marriage Act, 1955

Kumari Vagisha v. Kumar Sangam, 2026

The Court adopted a substantive interpretation of “living separately” rather than a purely physical one.

Patna High Court·30 April 2026
Kumari Vagisha v. Kumar Sangam, 2026
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Patna High Court

Date of Decision

30 April 2026

Judges

Justice Nani Tagia & Justice Alok Kumar Pandey

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The parties were married on 28.04.2021 under Hindu rites.

  • A female child was born on 19.03.2022.

  • Due to marital discord, the couple began living separately from March 2022.

  • A mutual divorce petition under Section 13B was filed on 11.05.2023 along with a settlement agreement.

  • Settlement terms included:

    • ₹20 lakh as permanent alimony

    • ₹2 lakh for child maintenance via fixed deposit

    • Custody of child with the mother

    • Withdrawal of pending criminal cases

  • During proceedings, the husband admitted to resuming conjugal relations on 15.03.2023, just before filing the petition.

  • The Family Court rejected the petition for non-fulfilment of statutory requirement of living separately for one year.

Issues

  1. Whether “living separately” under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act means physical separation or cessation of marital obligations?

  2. Whether resumption of conjugal relations within the statutory period defeats a mutual divorce petition under Section 13B?

  3. Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the petition despite settlement between the parties?

Judgement

  • The Court held that “living separately” does not mean mere physical separation.

  • It clarified that it refers to cessation of marital obligations and intent not to cohabit as husband and wife.

  • Parties may live together physically yet be separated in law, or live apart yet maintain marital relations.

  • The essential requirement is complete breakdown of marital relationship for at least one year.

  • The Court observed that the husband’s admission of resumed conjugal relations within the statutory period clearly violated Section 13B.

  • It upheld the Family Court’s decision rejecting the mutual divorce petition.

  • However, it allowed liberty to the parties to file a fresh petition under Section 13B.

Held

  • “Living separately” under Section 13B means cessation of marital obligations, not merely physical separation.

  • Resumption of marital relations within the statutory period defeats the requirement under Section 13B.

  • The rejection of mutual divorce petition was upheld.

  • Parties were granted liberty to file a fresh petition.

Analysis

  • The Court adopted a substantive interpretation of “living separately” rather than a purely physical one.

  • It reinforced that mutual consent divorce requires a clear and continuous breakdown of marital life.

  • The ruling prevents misuse of Section 13B through temporary separation arrangements.

  • It highlights that mutual consent must be genuine, continuous, and legally compliant.

  • The judgment balances marital autonomy with statutory safeguards.

  • It ensures that divorce by mutual consent is not granted where reconciliation has occurred within the cooling-off/statutory period.

MarriageDivorceMarriage DurationRemarriage