Unfortunately the simple answer is a ‘No’. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is not a direct ground for divorce in India, but the behaviours associated with it, such as mental cruelty or emotional abuse, can be used to file for divorce. To succeed, you must gather evidence of this behaviour and frame the case around legal grounds like cruelty or mental disorder, rather than the diagnosis itself.

In Venkat Perumal v. State of Andhra Pradesh , II (1998) DMC 523, the Andhra Pradesh High Court  dealt with a petition filed by an NRI husband  seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated by his wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)  for matrimonial cruelty. The wife had alleged that she faced harassment, humiliation, and torture  during her short stay with her husband both in Madras and in the United States. When she refused to terminate her pregnancy as

In the present appeal, the appellant-wife challenged the judgment passed by the Family Court on 28-11-2019, whereby her petition for the restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and the counterclaim of the respondent-husband for divorce was allowed and the divorce was granted. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., opined that the wife’s behaviour with his husband’s employees, humiliating him in front of his friends, refusing sexual relation

In the case of Christine Lazarus Menezes vs. Mr. Lazarus Peter Menezes (2017), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that filing false cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes cruelty and can be a ground for filing divorce. The details of the case are as follows:   The appellant's wife challenged the Family Court's decision that had approved the respondent's application for divorce. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court's ruling, rejec

This case set an important precedent regarding cruelty as a ground for divorce. The wife filed false criminal complaints against the husband and his family, leading to their harassment. The Supreme Court held that filing false cases constitutes mental cruelty, sufficient for granting divorce. It underscored the misuse of legal provisions and the need for judicial intervention in such matters. This case further delineated the threshold for establishing cruelty. The Court empha

This case further clarified the concept of cruelty, emphasising that it must be assessed based on the cumulative conduct of the parties and its impact on the petitioner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant a divorce based on the wife's behaviour, which constituted both physical and mental cruelty. This case is significant in reaffirming the broad interpretation of cruelty and its impact on individual well-being in matrimonial disputes.

This case provided comprehensive guidelines on mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. The Supreme Court held that persistent neglect, humiliation, and creating an unbearable environment could constitute mental cruelty. The judgment emphasised that mental cruelty is a state of mind and that courts must consider the cumulative effect of the conduct and its impact on the aggrieved spouse. This case is crucial in providing a nuanced understanding of mental cruelty and its impact

Madhya Pradesh High Court In an appeal seeking to set aside the Family Court, order refusing to award decree of divorce, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait,* CJ. and Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J., set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court and granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The Court held that “…forcing the wife to leave the job and live as per his wish and style, amounts to cruelty.” Poonam v. Naveen, 2024 SCC OnLine

Allahabad HC grants divorce to couple living separately for over a decade, cites continuous mental cruelty by wife.   In an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Family Court’s order, refusing to grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of HMA the division bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla*, JJ. while grantin