Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Customary Divorce Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved: Allahabad High Court Upholds First Wife’s Legal Status

16 October 2024 3:00 PM

By: sayum


High Court Sets Aside Lower Appellate Court's Decision, Reinstates Trial Court's Ruling on Non-Recognition of Customary Divorce and Invalidity of Second Marriage. In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has reaffirmed the legal principles governing Hindu marriages by setting aside the first appellate court's judgment which had erroneously recognized a customary divorce and second marriage. The decision, rendered by Justice Rajnish Kumar on May 17, 2024, highlights the stringent requirements for proving customary divorces and upholds the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit while reinstating the original wife's status.

The case revolved around the legal status of Anarkali, the appellant, who was contesting the claim of Siyawati, the respondent, to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Rampal. Rampal, who had worked as a peon and died in harness, was claimed by both women to be their husband. Siyawati had obtained a succession certificate and compassionate appointment based on her assertion of being Rampal's wife, which Anarkali contested. The trial court had dismissed Siyawati’s suit, declaring Anarkali as the legally wedded wife, but the first appellate court had reversed this decision, accepting Siyawati’s claim of a customary divorce (Chhoda Chhutti) between Rampal and Anarkali, and recognizing Siyawati’s marriage to Rampal.

Customary Divorce: Insufficient Pleading and Proof: The court meticulously evaluated whether the custom of 'Chhoda Chhutti' (customary divorce) claimed by the respondent was prevalent and recognized within the community. "The custom must be specifically pleaded and proved as ancient, continuous, and recognized in the community," Justice Rajnish Kumar emphasized. The respondent's failure to provide substantial instances or evidence demonstrating the existence and recognition of such a custom led to the conclusion that no customary divorce had occurred between the appellant, Anarkali, and her deceased husband, Rampal. The court further noted that the appellate court's acceptance of customary divorce based on weak evidence was legally unsustainable.

Validity of Second Marriage: The court underscored that a valid Hindu marriage requires adherence to specific rites and ceremonies as stipulated under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent, Siyawati, failed to establish that her marriage to Rampal was solemnized in accordance with these prescribed ceremonies, particularly the essential ritual of 'Saptapadi' (seven steps before the sacred fire). "Merely cohabitating as husband and wife does not constitute a valid marriage under Hindu law," the judgment noted.

Justice Kumar's judgment elaborated on the necessity of stringent proof for claiming a customary divorce, which contradicts the general law of Hindu marriages that views them as sacramental and indissoluble except by a court decree. The court reiterated that any exception to this rule, such as a customary divorce, must be thoroughly proven. "The absence of clear and convincing evidence of such a custom makes the claim legally untenable," the court stated.

Justice Rajnish Kumar remarked, "The burden of proving the custom of Chhoda Chhutti lies heavily on the party asserting it. Without robust evidence, such a claim cannot override the statutory provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act." He further asserted, "The mere assertion of living together as husband and wife does not fulfill the legal requirements for a valid marriage under Hindu law."

The Allahabad High Court's decision to set aside the first appellate court's judgment and restore the trial court's ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity and legal procedures of Hindu marriages. By emphasizing the rigorous standards for proving customary divorces and the necessity of proper solemnization ceremonies, the judgment fortifies the legal framework governing matrimonial disputes. This landmark ruling not only reinstates the appellant's status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased but also serves as a precedent in ensuring that customary claims are backed by substantial evidence in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024

Anarkali vs. Siyawati

Latest Legal News