Can a Hindu Marriage Be Dissolved Like a Contract?

The Allahabad High Court recently emphasized that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved or terminated in the same manner as a contract. The observation was made by a Bench consisting of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh while allowing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court's decision to dissolve her marriage at the behest of her husband.

In its ruling, the High Court underscored the sanctity of a Hindu marriage, highlighting that it is sacrament-based and may only be dissolved under limited circumstances, which must be substantiated by evidence. The Court observed that the family court had oversimplified the process of dissolution, failing to consider the intricacies involved in dissolving a Hindu marriage, which cannot be treated merely as a contractual relationship.

"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 observed in its ruling dated September 6, 2024.

Case Background

The case involved a couple who were married in 2006. The husband, an employee of the Indian Army, alleged that his wife had deserted him in 2007 and filed for divorce in 2008. He also claimed that his wife was infertile, which was a key factor in his plea for dissolution of the marriage.

Initially, the wife, in a written statement filed in 2008, gave her consent to the divorce. However, two years later, in 2010, she filed a second written statement contesting the divorce. In this later statement, she not only withdrew her consent but also challenged the husband's claim of infertility, providing documents to show that she had given birth to two children—one in 2008, shortly after the divorce plea was filed, and another in 2010.

Family Court's Ruling and High Court's Intervention

Despite the wife's contestation and the birth of two children, the family court dismissed her second written statement and proceeded to grant the divorce in March 2011. The family court relied solely on her initial written consent from 2008, without considering the new developments.

This ruling was subsequently challenged by the wife in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, after reviewing the case, set aside the family court's decision, criticizing it for adopting an overly simplistic approach in handling the divorce plea.

The High Court noted that while procedural rules restrict the filing of a second written statement, the family court could have sought an additional statement to address the significant changes in the couple’s circumstances. The Court further observed that by 2011, there was no mutual consent for the divorce, as the wife had already withdrawn her initial consent from 2008, both in writing and through oral testimony.

"The divorce suit, having been instituted in 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 remarked.

The Court held that the family court had erred in relying solely on the wife's withdrawn consent from 2008 without considering the fact that she had changed her mind. The trial court was obligated to examine whether the wife had truly withdrawn her consent for divorce, which was evident from the case records.

"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 ruled.

Conclusion and Further Directions

In its conclusion, the High Court noted that while it was inclined to help the estranged couple resolve their differences, it was unable to do so since the husband was not present before the Court. Consequently, the Court allowed the wife’s appeal, set aside the divorce decree, and remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The Court further directed that if mediation efforts between the couple were unsuccessful, the wife should be allowed to rely on her second written statement, and the husband would have the corresponding right to file a replication statement.

Advocates Uma Nath Pandey and Vinod Sinha represented the appellant (wife), while Advocates AN Pandey, DR Kushwaha, Manish C Tiwari, and Rajesh Kumar Dubey appeared on behalf of the respondent (husband).

The ruling serves as a significant reminder of the importance of treating Hindu marriages as sacred institutions that cannot be dissolved as easily as contractual relationships, requiring a careful and holistic approach by courts in divorce matters.