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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...