Skip to main content

Marriage under Hindu law not a contract to be undone by a deed, says Bombay High Court

Marriage under the Hindu law is not a contract that can be annulled by the signing of a deed of divorce by the couple themselves, the Bombay High Court has said, in a case that it termed as "very peculiar and most unusual."

The court was hearing an appeal against a family court order by a city couple who, unaware of the legal provisions for divorce, had dissolved their marriage by simply signing a deed between themselves. They did not approach a family court for a decree of divorce. Later, discovering the inadequacy of their deed, they petitioned the family court for "divorce by mutual consent", but the court refused to hear their plea on the grounds that they had already got divorced by signing the deed.

The HC division bench of Justice VK Tahilramani and Justice V L Achliya, earlier this week, directed the Bandra family court to dispose of the couple's plea as expeditiously as possible, even waiving the mandatory waiting period of six months for seeking divorce by mutual consent.

While passing the order, the HC observed that marriage under the Hindu law can never be treated as a "contract simplicitor" between two individuals. The bench observed: "Under the Hindu law, it is treated as a sacrosanct relation between two human beings placing certain obligations and duties against each other. So also the divorce in Hindu Marriage was a concept difficult of attainment and governed by stringent laws."

The couple were married in 2007, but differences arose between them just a year later. After all efforts to save the relationship failed, they chose to separate in June 2011 - but only through a "Deed of Divorce" which they got notarised. Both soon remarried.

That this deed did not legally annul the marriage only came to light when the wife -- now married to an American citizen of Indian origin --applied for a visa to the US Consulate. Her US-based husband had found her a job and wanted her to shift to that country.

The Consulate authorities brought it to her notice that her first marriage still subsisted. A few days after the personal interview at the Consulate, the authorities wrote her a letter in September this year, informing her that they were unable to issue her a visa as she had not produced a decree of divorce from an Indian court.

She immediately got in touch with her former husband, who agreed to file a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. The family court, however, rejected the petition, observing that they had already got divorced through the deed of divorce "as per the custom and usages prevailing in their caste and community."

The wife's advocate, R M Upadhyay, argued before the HC that to accept divorce by "customs prevailing in the caste and community," there has to be a proven track record of such a custom. Moreover, the couple were both Hindus, and the Hindu Marriage Act contained no provision for getting divorced in that manner.

The HC accepted the argument and restored the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent.

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...