The Allahabad High Court held that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 10/- is not a mode of dissolution of Hindu Marriage recognized by law.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing validity of the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shravasti in Maintenance Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party-wife of the revisionist. The validity of the judgment has been assailed on the ground that the parties had taken divorce by mutual consent in accordance with the customs of the locality, about 14 years prior to the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and this fact was concealed by the opposite party in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The judgment has also been assailed on the ground that the opposite party did not disclose her source of maintenance for the long period of 14 years between the dissolution of the marriage between the parties and the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the copy of the divorce agreement executed by mutual consent and noted that it was written unilaterally by the opposite party on a stamp paper worth Rs. 10/-. Numerous other persons have put their signatures on this unilateral declaration written and signed by the opposite party and the revisionist has also signed on it as a witness of its execution but he is not a party to the execution of this unilateral divorce declaration.
The court stated that a marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and a unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 10/- is not a mode of dissolution by Hindu Marriage recognized by law and thus the marriage between the parties was not dissolved in accordance with law and she continues to be the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.
Further, it was stated that when the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party has not been dissolved by any manner known to law, it continues to subsist and the respondent having married another lady and having procreated three children from her, has given rise to a reasonable cause to the opposite party to live separate from the revisionist.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram vs Smt. Shiv Rani
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 191 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sadhu Sharan Chaubey, Abha Srivastava, Manish Barnwal
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://govinfo.me/samadhan-scheme-tamil-nadu-pay-two-third-stamp-duty-get-back-property-documents/