It was further changed in 1983 by addition of section 498A to the Indian Penal Code, which aimed to protect married women from cruel treatment by husbands and in-laws.
Duncan Derrett predicted in his later writings that despite some evidence of modernisation, the dominant view in Hindu society for the foreseeable future would remain that marriage is a form of social obligation.
As stated in section 9 of the act, in cases where either the husband or the wife has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse, the aggrieved party may apply to the district court for restitution of conjugal rights.
If the court is satisfied with the truth of the statements and finds no legal ground to deny the application, it may decree restitution of conjugal rights.
Divorce can be sought by husband or wife on certain grounds, including: continuous period of desertion for two or more years, conversion to a religion other than Hindu, mental abnormality, venereal disease, and leprosy.
Mutual divorce provides an opportunity for couples to part ways on agreed terms, minimizing conflict and emotional distress.
Section 25 of the Act allows either spouse, after the finalization of divorce or judicial separation, to approach the court for an order of permanent alimony or maintenance.
The court considers various factors such as the income, assets, and liabilities of both parties, as well as their individual needs and circumstances, while determining the amount of alimony or maintenance to be awarded.
New section 13E provides restriction on decree for divorce affecting children born out of wedlock and states that a court shall not pass a decree of divorce under section 13C unless the court is satisfied that adequate provision for the maintenance of children born out of the marriage has been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.
"[15][16][17] Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it can exercise power under Article 142(1) to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and can bypass the provisions of section 13B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
[19] If literally interpreted, the terms "groom" and "bride" may be viewed as referring to narrow definitions based on genders ("male" and "female").
However, the Hindu Marriage Act was a codification of the ancient Sastrik law by the colonial government for the purpose of regulating issues such as divorce.
These petitioners include Hindu queer rights activists, such as Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar Madurai, Giti Thadani and G.Oorvasi.
[22] The petition requested the Supreme Court to recognise the marriage between any two persons, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.
[20][21][22] The petitioners argued that they require legal recognition of their marriage because, unlike unregistered opposite-sex married couples, they often encounter officials who question the legitimacy of their relationship.
The petitioners had to rely on personal connections and the goodwill of the authorities to access social and economic rights that are automatically available to married couples.
To make their case, they presented evidence of the difficulty they faced in simple tasks such as opening joint bank accounts and obtaining proof of residence.