## Facts

- Husband and wife, both Indian nationals, married in India in 1974 under Hindu rites.
- In 1976, husband moved to the United States for education; wife remained in India due to inability to obtain a visa.
- The parties corresponded during the separation; husband expressed affection in letters as late as September 1978.
- In August 1979, husband filed for divorce in New Jersey; he later dismissed that action after relocating to Pennsylvania.
- On October 15, 1980, husband filed a unilateral no-fault divorce complaint in Pennsylvania under 23 P.S. § 201(d), alleging the parties had lived “separate and apart” for three years and the marriage was irretrievably broken.
- A master recommended granting a divorce; the trial court entered a divorce decree in November 1982, and the Superior Court affirmed.
- The wife appealed, disputing how the three-year “separate and apart” period is measured under § 201(d).

## Issues

1. Whether the three-year “separate and apart” period under 23 P.S. § 201(d) begins only when at least one spouse has formed and objectively manifested an intent to end the marriage, rather than upon mere physical separation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order affirming the divorce decree.
- The court held that § 201(d) requires both physical separation and an independent, demonstrable intent to dissolve the marriage at the start of the separation period.
- The court concluded the husband’s first clear manifestation of intent to end the marriage occurred when he filed the New Jersey divorce complaint in August 1979.
- Because the Pennsylvania complaint was filed about fourteen months later, the statutory three-year period was not satisfied at filing, so divorce could not be granted on § 201(d) grounds.

## Legal Principles

- “Separate and apart” under § 201(d) is not satisfied by physical separation alone; it requires physical separation plus a clearly manifested intent by at least one spouse to end the marital relationship at the commencement of the statutory period.
- The intent element must be objectively shown (and not merely privately held) to avoid depriving the other spouse of a fair opportunity for reconciliation, consistent with the Divorce Code’s reconciliation policy.
- Where the record shows continued marital communications inconsistent with dissolution, the statutory period does not begin until a spouse’s intent to terminate the marriage is clearly evidenced by conduct such as filing for divorce.

## Conclusion

The court construed § 201(d) to require an intent-to-end-the-marriage component at the beginning of the three-year separation period and reversed the divorce decree because the husband’s objectively shown intent arose too late to satisfy the statutory duration when the Pennsylvania action was filed.


Sinha v. Sinha, 526 A.2d 765 (Pa. 1987)