MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |    

Compromise in Sec 125 Cr.P.C. Proceedings Cannot Dissolve Marriage under Hindu Marriage Act: Allahabad HC Upholds Family Pension Rights of First Wife

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Allahabad, March 2024: In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that a compromise reached in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) does not legally dissolve a marriage governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decision, delivered by the bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, has significant implications for family pension claims and the sanctity of marriage dissolution.

Legal Point of the Judgement: The court examined the legal framework surrounding the dissolution of a Hindu marriage and the subsequent implications for family pension claims. The key issue was whether a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act could be dissolved through a compromise in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding, and what impact this would have on the rights to a family pension of a deceased government employee's spouse.

Facts and Issues: The case involved Rajni Rani, the later wife of a deceased government employee, Bhojraj Singh, who appealed against the dismissal of her writ petition for a family pension claim. The petitioner argued that Bhojraj Singh's first marriage to Usha Devi was dissolved via a compromise in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding, thus entitling her to the family pension. However, Usha Devi contested this claim, asserting that her marriage with Singh was never legally dissolved.

Court Assessment: The High Court meticulously assessed the legal provisions governing marriage dissolution under the Hindu Marriage Act. It emphasized that "a marriage can only be dissolved through a decree by a competent court." The court found that a compromise in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding, which primarily deals with maintenance, cannot annul a marriage. The bench remarked, "Even with the consent of the parties, the jurisdiction of the concerned court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be expanded to pass a decree of divorce."

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the right of the first wife, Usha Devi, to the family pension. The bench ruled that the marriage between Bhojraj Singh and Usha Devi was not legally dissolved and that Usha Devi's claim to the family pension remains valid.

Decision Date: March 12, 2024.

Rajni Rani Vs. State of UP and 10 Others,

Similar News