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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...