The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking compassionate appointment, holding that a marriage with a man whose first marriage was not legally dissolved is void. The court ruled that a divorce between a Hindu couple can only be effected under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not through an informal agreement on a stamp paper. Consequently, the court found that the petitioner, claiming to be the second wife, had no valid claim to compassionate appointment.
Background of the Case
The petition was initiated by a woman who challenged an order dated April 5, 2025. This order had rejected her application for compassionate appointment following the death of a Junior Assistant in the agriculture department.
The petitioner stated that the deceased employee was initially married to another woman (the respondent). She claimed that the employee divorced his first wife and subsequently married her on June 28, 2021. The employee committed suicide on March 18, 2025. Following his death, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, asserting she was the only surviving wife of the deceased.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities erred in rejecting the application because she had submitted documentary evidence proving her marriage to the deceased, which they failed to take into account.
In response, counsel for the first wife refuted the petitioner’s submissions. They argued that it was an admitted fact that the first wife was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that no divorce had ever occurred between them. Therefore, the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was void, and her application was correctly rejected. It was also brought to the court’s attention that the first wife has submitted her own application for compassionate appointment, which is still pending consideration.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Manish Mathur, after considering the arguments and reviewing the material on record, found that the petitioner could not substantiate her claims.
The court observed that while the petitioner alleged a divorce between the deceased and his first wife, “there is no document brought on record to corroborate the submission of a divorce having been effected”. It was noted that the claim of divorce appeared to be based solely on a stamp paper.
In a critical observation, the court stated, ““No such stamp paper has been brought on record and even otherwise divorce between a married Hindu couple can be effected only in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and not otherwise”. As the petitioner failed to produce a divorce decree from a competent court, the High Court concluded, “it can not be inferred that the opposite party No.5 and the deceased were ever divorced”. The court also highlighted that the impugned order used the same reasoning and further mentioned that the petitioner’s name was not listed in the deceased’s service book or as a nominee for his benefits.
Regarding the petitioner’s own marriage claim, the court noted that the proof submitted was ““clearly based only on a certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir concerned”“. Justice Mathur cited precedent from a Co-ordinate Bench in Dolly Rani versus Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025) 2 SCC 587 and Shruti Agnihotri versus Anand Kumar Srivastava 2024 SCC OnLine All 3701, where ““such a certificate has not been deemed to be a valid certificate of marriage”“.
Decision
Based on these facts and circumstances, the court declared that it “does not find any good ground to grant indulgence to petitioner”. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
