Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

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

Similar News