"Inability To Bear Child Not Grounds For Divorce:" Patna HC

The Patna High Court dismissed a man’s revision plea against the Family Court’s rejection of his matrimonial case for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that the inability to bear a child was not a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage.

The High Court observed that the wife was unable to bear a child because she had a cyst in her uterus. Hence, the husband wanted to divorce her and get remarried so that he could have a child.

The two-judge bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar and Justice P.B. Bajanthri said that developing a health issue during the period of marriage was not within the control of the spouse. Further, the court stated that it was the marital duty of the spouse to cooperate and help the other spouse.

Patna HC On Divorce Over Infertility

The bench also pointed out that the inability to bear a child wasn’t impotence nor a ground for dissolving marriage. The court encouraged such couples to resort to other means of having a child, such as adoption, instead of seeking a divorce. It emphasised that divorce is not granted in such circumstances under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The family court dismissed the man’s pleas as he failed to prove the allegations of cruelty made against the wife. He had claimed that her conduct towards his parents and family members was improper during her stay in the matrimonial home. He also alleged that the wife refused to consummate the marriage and that her intention was merely to break her virginity and not start a family. The man claimed the wife had undisclosed meetings with other people from her village despite her family’s objections.

The man argued that he tried several times to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but she consistently refused. The court was informed that when the wife disclosed her health condition to her husband and asked for financial help for treatment, he took her to a doctor in Muzaffarpur. An ultrasonic scan following the doctor’s advice revealed that the wife had a cyst in her uterus and no eggs, which made it unlikely for her to bear a child.

The court was also told that the husband was a 24-year-old man who was in good health, needed cohabitation, and wished to become a father. However, the wife refused to cohabit or had the possibility of becoming a mother. The divorce petition was filed two years after marriage, but the couple lived together for two months.

Although living separately, the court observed that only because the husband was in touch with the wife and informed him about her illness. So that cannot be considered grounds for desertion. Since the motive of the man was to divorce the wife and remarry to have a child, the court ruled that this was not a substantial ground for dissolving the marriage.

Inability To Bear Child Not Grounds For Divorce

As the court rightfully pointed out, marriage isn’t about having children. Pregnancy is only a choice that a couple makes. There is much more to marriage than having children, let alone biological ones. Again, as the court suggested, the woman is not in any way responsible for being unable to bear a child; her health condition isn’t in her hands. 

As a husband, it was his responsibility to stand by her in the tough phase and help her sail through it. Where is companionship in marriage if it can be broken by a mere inability to have children?

Moreover, adoption, surrogacy, and more are other ways to have children that can be explored. Merely the wife's inability to bear a child cannot be grounds for seeking a divorce. It’s refreshing to see such a considerate and fair ruling from the court, reinforcing the people’s belief in the judiciary.

Suggested Reading: Genital Tuberculosis A Major Reason Of Infertility In Women: Study