Divorce Can’t Take Place Merely On Execution Of Notarized Agreement Of Divorce: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering an intra-court appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam.
While dismissing the petition of a man claiming pension on the ground that he was the second husband of a deceased female government employee, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that divorce cannot take place merely on execution of a notarized agreement of divorce. The High Court held that the appellant, who might be in a live-in relationship with the deceased employee, did not acquire any legal status.
The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order passed by the Single Judge. A direction was also sought to the respondent to grant terminal benefits including family pension provided in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 to the petitioner.
The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla noted, “Undisputedly, Kok Singh was the first husband of late Smt. Suman. No petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ever filed by the parties. No decree, either under Section 13 or Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, was obtained by any of the parties for severing the marital ties of Kok Singh with Smt. Suman Bai. Divorce cannot take place merely on execution of a notarized agreement of divorce.”
“Under these circumstances, it is clear that marital ties of Smt. Suman Bai with Kok Singh was never severeed/broken, and thus, the first marriage of Smt. Suman Bai continued to subsist in absence of any decree for divorce”, it added.
Advocate Mahabir Prasad Sharma represented the Appellant while Additional Advocate General Ankur Mody represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case as set up by the appellant was that his wife late Suman Devi was a permanent employee on the post of Chowkidar in the Department of Tribal and Welfare. During the course of employment, she passed away in 2022 but the family pension and other benefits payable to appellant had not been paid despite repeated efforts. It was the case of the respondents that the Court of Additional Collector, Gwalior, had issued a certificate regarding the legal heirs of the deceased employee Suman according to which the husband of Suman and her children were the legal representatives. It was the case of respondents that the appellant Ram Kripal Singh was not the husband of late Suman Bai, and thus, he was not entitled for any dues.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that appellant had failed to prove that he was the husband of late Suman. However, liberty was also granted to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings to establish his relationship as husband of Suman and then raise his claim before the competent authority.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the records of the case, the Bench noted that as per the declarations, which were made by Suman, she had specifically disclosed that the name of her husband was Kok Singh and not Ram Kripal Singh/appellant. The Bench noted that the service record also contained a letter issued by Assistant Commissioner (Jan Jatiya Karya Vibhag) Gwalior, which was addressed to Kok Singh Kushwah and Ram Kripal / appellant wherein it was mentioned that Ram Kripal had also claimed himself to be the husband of Suman Bai, and accordingly, both of them were directed to obtain the succession certificate.
The Bench found that according to this notarized agreement, Suman Bai and Kok Singh had taken a divorce and the appellant had also filed a photocopy of an affidavit executed by Suman Bai in which she had claimed that earlier she was married to Kok Singh, but by a notarized agreement, the marital relationship with Kok Singh were broken in 1998, and she had married Ram Kripal thereafter.
Referring to Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act which talks about the conditions for a Hindu marriage, the Bench explained that none of the parties to the marriage should have a living spouse at the time of marriage. The Bench was of the view that the first marriage of Suman Bai continued to subsist in absence of any decree for divorce.
Thus, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that he was ever married to late Suman Bai, the Bench added, “Even assuming that appellant Ram Kripal was in a live-in relationship with late Smt. Suman Bai, but that by itself would not give any legal flavor or color to such a illegal relationship.”
The Bench stated, “Although it is well established principle of law that long cohabitation can be presumed to be a valid marriage, but once the first marriage of late Smt. Suman Bai was never severed, and in case if the long cohabitation (this is not a finding of the Court but it is being considered in the light of the submissions made by appellant) is treated as a presumption of a valid marriage, then such presumption would be contrary to Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and in view of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, any marriage solemnized in contravention of any of the conditions specified in subsections (i) (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be a void marriage.”
Thus, holding that the appellant was not entitled for any benefits on account of the death of Suman Bai, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ram Kripal Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: . 2026:MPHC-GWL:19161)