The Delhi High Court recently observed that the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) allowing divorce and separation of married couples must be construed in a strict and limited manner.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar said that allowing broader or liberal interpretations of the provisions for annulment of marriage through a decree of nullity or divorce would risk trivialising the sanctity of marriage.
It would undermine the legislative intent of preserving a marriage’s stability, dignity and permanence except in clearly defined circumstances.
“We are firmly of the view that the provisions of the HMA, particularly those concerning declarations of nullity, voidable marriages, divorce, and judicial separation, must be strictly construed and applied,” the Court said.
Further, the Court held that the petitions seeking annulment of marriages on the ground that essential ceremonies were not performed during the wedding, are not maintainable under the HMA.
It ruled that the statute contains no provision that enables a party to seek a declaration that a marriage is invalid ab initio on the ground that it was never solemnised in accordance with Section 7 of the HMA.
“All provisions in the HMA that deal with declarations, whether relating to a marriage being void, voidable, or grounds for divorce, are applicable only to those marriages that have been solemnised,” the Court said.
It added that the relief of nullity is available only in cases expressly defined by Section 11 and is contingent on statutory violations, not on lack of rituals alone.
“A conjoint reading of Sections 5 and 11 of the HMA makes it abundantly clear that the remedy of nullity under Section 11 is strictly confined to situations where a marriage, though duly solemnised in accordance with law, contravenes the specific prohibitions contained in the above clauses of Section 5. Section 11 thus presupposes a solemnised marriage," the Court said.
The Bench made these observations while dealing with an appeal filed by a couple against a family court order. They sought a declaration that their marriage was “null and void” on the grounds that Hindu marriage rites, including the Saptapadi, were not performed during their ceremony and they never cohabitated as husband and wife.
It was stated that the parties rushed their marriage in an Arya Samaj temple and got it registered to facilitate a UK visa. They said that though they had planned a grander wedding at a later stage, some disputes cropped up later came and, therefore, they sought a declaration that their wedding was void ab initio since the essential marriage rites were not performed during the marriage.
After considering the case, the Bench upheld the family court order and termed the appeal “a product of sheer ingenuity and a misguided attempt to turn settled law on its head”.
The Court added that allowing the plea would have international repercussions as it would bring into disrepute the system of marriage registration.
“Not only would, in our opinion, permitting the present appeal or upholding even the maintainability of the underlying petition be an affront to our statutory scheme, but it could well become the chosen route of such of the ingenious, who seek documentation in support of their nefarious intent, and thereafter, the interference of the Judicial system to validate this malafide,” it said.
Therefore, the Court rejected the appeal.
Advocates Peeyoosh Kalra and Ashok Kumar Nagrath appeared for the husband.
The wife was represented through advocates Meghna Nair and Yashwant Singh Baghel.
Advocate Prosenjeet Banerjee acted as amicus curiae. He was assisted by Advocate Anshika Sharma.
[Read Judgment]