The Allahabad High Court ruled that a marriage between two Hindus is governed by the Hindu Marriage Act and that it can not be dissolved by a compromise made during maintenance proceedings under Section 125CrPC Instead, the marriage can only be dissolved by a competent court issuing an appropriate decree in accordance with the Act's provisions.

Brief Facts:

An assistant teacher named Bhojraj Singh superannuated on June 30, 2012, and passed away on February 10, 2021. The appellant filed a claim for family pension on the grounds that she was married to the late Bhojraj Singh and had been living as such for a number of years. She further claimed that although Bhojraj Singh had first married the private respondent Usha Devi, who was in a contest, the marriage did not work out, and the couple divorced. Usha Devi had started a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and after reaching a compromise, the parties had split up. Therefore, it was claimed that Usha Devi had no legal claim against the deceased employee once they had parted ways. The current appellant and the dead employee got married.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

In his appearance on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel argued that the appellant's claim is clearly sustainable under the current circumstances because the prior marriage was dissolved through a compromise reached by the parties in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it is argued that the opposing party to the dispute has already formally consummated the future marriage, making the private respondent's claim to a family pension untenable.

Contentions of the Respondent:

In this appeal, no further material has been filed, and the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the private respondent Usha Devi's plea of a second marriage was not pleaded in the writ. The learned counsel also agreed to make nebulous claims in this regard.

Observations of the court:

The court observed that the issue that needs to be resolved given the circumstances of this case is whether Bhojraj Singh and Usha Devi's acknowledged marriage could be dissolved by a compromise in proceedings conducted in accordance with Section 125 Cr. P.C. In addition, the question that would come up is whether the private respondent's claim may be dismissed because she entered into a second marriage.

The court declared that insofar as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned, they are about the payment of maintenance to the deserted wife. The scope of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is restricted, meaning that it only concerns determining the amount of maintenance. The court can not dissolve the parties' marriage during these proceedings because its jurisdiction is limited to determining the maintenance issue. The competent court's jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be extended to grant it the authority to issue a divorce order, even with the parties' cooperation. It is well-established in law that jurisdiction can not be granted by consent between parties if it is not otherwise granted by the law.

The court declared that the parties involved are Hindu by religion and that their marriage would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Since the parties' marriage is governed by the Act of 1955, the only way to dissolve such a marriage is to have a competent court pass an appropriate decree in accordance with the Act's provisions, but no such decree has ever been passed by a competent court. It was also declared that a purported compromise between the parties could not have been the sole reason for the dissolution of their marriage.

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