In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has declared that a Hindu marriage cannot be terminated as a mere contractual agreement, underscoring the sacramental nature of matrimonial bonds under Hindu law. This judgement comes from a division bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh, which set aside a previous court order dissolving a marriage based on mutual consent that was later contested.
The case involved an appeal by a woman against a 2011 decision by the Additional District Judge of Bulandshahar, which had granted her husband a divorce on grounds of desertion. The couple married on February 2, 2006, but faced marital discord leading to separation a year later. Initially, during mediation, both parties had agreed to separate, but the wife subsequently retracted her consent, a critical point the lower court overlooked when it proceeded with the divorce.
Highlighting this oversight, the High Court noted that the dissolution of marriage on mutual consent must be contingent upon the ongoing agreement of both parties up to the time of the final order. “Once the appellant claimed to have withdrawn her consent and that fact was on the record, it never became open to the learned court below to force the appellant to abide by the original consent given by her that too almost three years later,” the bench stated, adding that to proceed otherwise “would be a travesty of justice.”
In a twist during subsequent mediation hosted by Army authorities—the husband was employed with the Indian Army—the couple expressed a willingness to reconcile, further complicating the legal proceedings. Despite the initial consent for separation, the presence of two children born during their intermittent reconciliations and new willingness to cohabit demonstrated the complex dynamics often involved in matrimonial disputes.
Attorney Mahesh Sharma, representing the woman, successfully argued that the lower court had erred by relying solely on the initial written statement and ignoring subsequent developments which contradicted the grounds for divorce.
