The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved or terminated like a contract..A Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by a woman against a family court ruling that had dissolved her marriage on her husband's plea.The High Court set aside the family court ruling after noting that a sacrament-based Hindu marriage may be dissolved only in limited circumstances, that too after leading evidence. "It requires no elaboration that a Hindu marriage is not to be dissolved or terminated as a contract. The sacrament based Hindu marriage may be dissolved (in law), in limited circumstances. In the first place, a Hindu marriage may be declared void on an allegation of impotency suffered by either spouse only on the strength of evidence led," the Court said in its September 6 ruling. .The case concerned a couple who got married in 2006. The husband, an Indian Army employee, alleged desertion by the wife in 2007 and filed for divorce in 2008. He also claimed that she was infertile. In a written statement filed in 2008, the wife initially expressed consent for the divorce.However, the wife later contested the divorce case by filing a second written statement in 2010. In this, she also challenged the infertility claim by presenting documents to disprove the allegation. She pointed out that she had given birth to two children, one in 2008 (just after the divorce plea was filed) and another in 2010. Her husband objected to a second written statement being filed. In March 2011, the family court allowed his objection and declined to rely on the wife's second written statement of 2010.On the same day, the family court proceeded to hear the case on merits and allowed the husband's divorce plea. This was challenged by the wife before the High Court. .The High Court overturned the family court ruling after noting that it had not considered the matter holistically. The Court said that although there were restrictions on filing a second written statement, nothing prevented the lower court from seeking an additional statement to examine the changed circumstances in this case. "The divorce suit having been instituted in the year 2008 and it having remained pending for three years, an over simplistic approach has been adopted-in relying only on the bald (first) Written Statement filed by the appellant (wife), and the consent dated 28.04.2008 ... while ignoring subsequent developments," the High Court observed. .The High Court found that there was no "mutual" consent for divorce by the time the family court allowed the divorce plea. Although the wife had expressed consent for the divorce in 2008, she had later withdrawn such consent, as also evident from her oral testimony in 2011, the High Court pointed out. The trial court ought to have examined whether the wife had changed her mind, the High Court opined. "The learned Court below has erred in blindly acting on the consent recorded on 28.4.2008 ... Once the appellant claimed to have withdrawn her consent and that fact was on the record, it never became open to the learned court below to act on that (withdrawn) consent, belatedly," the High Court held. The Bench added that it was inclined to help the estranged spouses resolve their differences, but was unable to do so since the husband was not present before the Court..The High Court proceeded to allow the wife's appeal to set aside the divorce decree and asked the trial court to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law."If no mediation may arise or be successful, necessarily the appellant (wife) may be allowed to rely on the second Written Statement ... with corresponding right to the respondent (husband) to file Replication Statement," the Court added. .Advocates Uma Nath Pandey and Vinod Sinha appeared for the appellant (wife).Advocates AN Pandey, DR Kushwaha, Manish C Tiwari and Rajesh Kumar Dubey represented the respondent (husband). .[Read Order]
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved or terminated like a contract..A Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by a woman against a family court ruling that had dissolved her marriage on her husband's plea.The High Court set aside the family court ruling after noting that a sacrament-based Hindu marriage may be dissolved only in limited circumstances, that too after leading evidence. "It requires no elaboration that a Hindu marriage is not to be dissolved or terminated as a contract. The sacrament based Hindu marriage may be dissolved (in law), in limited circumstances. In the first place, a Hindu marriage may be declared void on an allegation of impotency suffered by either spouse only on the strength of evidence led," the Court said in its September 6 ruling. .The case concerned a couple who got married in 2006. The husband, an Indian Army employee, alleged desertion by the wife in 2007 and filed for divorce in 2008. He also claimed that she was infertile. In a written statement filed in 2008, the wife initially expressed consent for the divorce.However, the wife later contested the divorce case by filing a second written statement in 2010. In this, she also challenged the infertility claim by presenting documents to disprove the allegation. She pointed out that she had given birth to two children, one in 2008 (just after the divorce plea was filed) and another in 2010. Her husband objected to a second written statement being filed. In March 2011, the family court allowed his objection and declined to rely on the wife's second written statement of 2010.On the same day, the family court proceeded to hear the case on merits and allowed the husband's divorce plea. This was challenged by the wife before the High Court. .The High Court overturned the family court ruling after noting that it had not considered the matter holistically. The Court said that although there were restrictions on filing a second written statement, nothing prevented the lower court from seeking an additional statement to examine the changed circumstances in this case. "The divorce suit having been instituted in the year 2008 and it having remained pending for three years, an over simplistic approach has been adopted-in relying only on the bald (first) Written Statement filed by the appellant (wife), and the consent dated 28.04.2008 ... while ignoring subsequent developments," the High Court observed. .The High Court found that there was no "mutual" consent for divorce by the time the family court allowed the divorce plea. Although the wife had expressed consent for the divorce in 2008, she had later withdrawn such consent, as also evident from her oral testimony in 2011, the High Court pointed out. The trial court ought to have examined whether the wife had changed her mind, the High Court opined. "The learned Court below has erred in blindly acting on the consent recorded on 28.4.2008 ... Once the appellant claimed to have withdrawn her consent and that fact was on the record, it never became open to the learned court below to act on that (withdrawn) consent, belatedly," the High Court held. The Bench added that it was inclined to help the estranged spouses resolve their differences, but was unable to do so since the husband was not present before the Court..The High Court proceeded to allow the wife's appeal to set aside the divorce decree and asked the trial court to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law."If no mediation may arise or be successful, necessarily the appellant (wife) may be allowed to rely on the second Written Statement ... with corresponding right to the respondent (husband) to file Replication Statement," the Court added. .Advocates Uma Nath Pandey and Vinod Sinha appeared for the appellant (wife).Advocates AN Pandey, DR Kushwaha, Manish C Tiwari and Rajesh Kumar Dubey represented the respondent (husband). .[Read Order]
