The Allahabad High Court held that marriage between two Hindus is governed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the marriage cannot be dissolved by way of a compromise entered into at the time of proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Brief Facts:
One Bhojraj Singh was an assistant teacher who superannuated on 30.06.2012 and later died on 02.10.2021. The appellant came up with a case of payment of family pension on the ground that she had contracted marriage with late Bhojraj Singh and has been residing as such for the last several years and contended that though Bhojraj Singh had initially contracted marriage with contesting private respondent Usha Devi but the marriage ultimately did not succeed and the marital parties parted ways. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had been initiated by Usha Devi in which a compromise was arrived at, as per which, the parties had separated. It was therefore urged that once Usha Devi parted ways with the deceased employee no right survived in her as against the deceased employee. The deceased employee contracted marriage with the present appellant.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that in the facts of the present case, the claim of the appellant is clearly sustainable inasmuch as the previous marriage itself was dissolved by way of a compromise entered into between the parties in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the contesting opposite party has otherwise solemnized the subsequent marriage, and therefore, the claim of family pension by the private respondent would be unsustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the plea of a second marriage by the private respondent Usha Devi was not pleaded in the writ and agreed to make vague allegations in that regard in this appeal no other material has been placed.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the question that arises for determination in the facts of the present case is whether the admitted marriage between Bhojraj Singh and Usha Devi could be dissolved by way of a compromise in proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C.. Further, the issue that would arise is whether the claim of the private respondent could be non-suited on the ground that she has contracted a second marriage.
The court stated that so far as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned, such proceedings are in respect of payment of maintenance to the deserted wife and the scope of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is limited i.e. with regard to the determination of the amount of maintenance and in such proceeding the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved by the court inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the court would be limited to determination of the aspect of maintenance. Even with the consent of the parties, the jurisdiction of the concerned court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be expanded so as to concede the power with such court to pass a decree of divorce. Law is well settled that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction if it is otherwise not vested by law.
The court stated that the parties herein are Hindu by religion and the marriage between them would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the marriage between the parties since are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the only manner in which such marriage can be dissolved is by passing of an appropriate decree by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1955 and no such decree by a competent court was ever passed. It was further stated that the marriage between the parties could not have been dissolved merely on the basis of a compromise allegedly entered into between the parties.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Rajni Rani vs State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
Case No.: SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 56 of 2024S
Advocate for the Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Shyam Narayan Verma
Advocate for the Respondent: Siddharth Khare
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
