SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Raj) 121

Rajasthan High Court
K. S. SIDHU
Damodar - Appellant
Versus
Urmila - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 71 of 1978
Decided On : 07/30/1979

Advocates:
N.K. Mallo for A.K. Bhandari. for Appellant; H.C. Rastogi for A.K. Gupta, for Respondent.

The matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage Act does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a customary divorce granted by a community Panchayat. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

Headnote:

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - COURT'S JURISDICTION - CUSTOMARY DIVORCE - VALIDITY - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION.

Fact of the Case:

Husband appealed a lower court decision granting his wife a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband claimed that he had obtained a divorce from the community Panchayat according to custom and that the marriage was no longer subsisting.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage Act did not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a customary divorce granted by a community Panchayat. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

Issues: 1. Whether the matrimonial court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of a customary divorce granted by a community Panchayat. 2. Whether the husband had obtained a valid divorce from the community Panchayat according to custom.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Marriage Act is a complete code that creates new rights for aggrieved spouses to obtain various matrimonial reliefs, including restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of marriage, and divorce. 2. The Act does not provide for the grant of relief to a spouse seeking a declaration that a marriage has been dissolved according to custom or for a spouse to raise a defense of customary divorce in a matrimonial proceeding. 3. Section 23-A of the Act, which allows a respondent-spouse to make a counterclaim for relief based on the petitioner's adultery, cruelty, or desertion, further supports the conclusion that no other relief is available to a respondent in a matrimonial proceeding under the Act. 4. Section 29 of the Act saves pre-existing rights based on custom but does not create a special right of dissolution of marriage on the basis of custom.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's appeal, holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the customary divorce and that the husband must seek appropriate relief from the Civil Court.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage Act does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a customary divorce granted by a community Panchayat (!) (!) . - Such matters regarding the validity of customary divorce fall within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts (!) (!) . - The Hindu Marriage Act is a complete code that creates new matrimonial reliefs but does not provide for dissolution of marriage based on custom (!) (!) . - A respondent-spouse cannot raise a defence of customary divorce in a matrimonial proceeding under the Act (!) (!) . - Section 29 of the Act only saves pre-existing customary rights and does not create a new right of dissolution based on custom (!) (!) . - The matrimonial court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of a alleged customary divorce (!) . - The husband must seek appropriate relief from the Civil Court rather than the matrimonial court (!) . Important: Do not include any specific case law references or citations. While your writing should be informed by legal principles, avoid mentioning any particular cases or external sources.

What is the jurisdiction of the matrimonial court under the Hindu Marriage Act regarding customary divorce granted by a community Panchayat?

What are the rights of a spouse seeking restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act when a customary divorce has been obtained?

What relief is available to a respondent-spouse under the Hindu Marriage Act in a matrimonial proceeding where a customary divorce has been claimed?


Judgement

JUDGEMENT :- This appeal in a matrimonial matter has been preferred by the husband from the judgement dated Nov. 30, 1977, made by the District Judge; Jhunjhunu, granting the wife a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the husband.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be shortly stated here. The parties were married according to Hindu rites at Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, Dist. Jhunjhunu, on March 9, 1970. The wife brought a petition against the husband under S.9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for restitution of conjugal rights on September 18, 1973. She made the allegations that the parties resided together at Sonthali for nearly 31/2 years after the marriage, and that the husband and his parents had been ill-treating her throughout that period. On Aug. 17, 1973, the husband forcibly took her to Pilani and left her there at her parents' house, He bluntly told her that he would not reinstate her in the matrimonial home until she brought dowry according to the wishes of his parents and satisfied them. She was carrying a pregnancy of nearly 8 months duration in August, 1973, when she was deserted by the husband. Her father went to the husband's village, namely, Sonthali on Aug. 18, 1973 and pleaded with the husband and his parents to reinstate her in the matrimonial home. They did not agree. They told him that the husband would not keep her in the matrimonial home until she brought dowry as required by them. She thus complained that the husband had withdrawn from her society without any reasonable excuse and, therefore, she was entitled to the decree as prayed.

3. The husband contested the petition and filed a written statement in answer to it. He admitted that the parties were married according to Hindu rites at Pilani on March 9, 1970. He, however, pleaded that the Muklawa ceremony had taken place nearly 9 months after the marriage, and that the parties had started cohabitation only after the said ceremony. They resided together at Sonthali for about a week after the Muklawa ceremony. She then went back to her parents' house at Pilani and lived there for nearly 3 months with her parents. He went to Pilani and brought her back to Sonthali where they again lived together for about a week. He then went to Hoshiyarpur in the State of Punjab to work as an Astrologer. She stayed behind at Sonthali with his parents for about a month. On her insistence, his parents arranged for her return to her parents' house at Pilani. He lived in various places in Punjab till Feb. 12, 1973, when he visited his village Sonthali on the occasion of the wedding of his sister. She also visited Sonthali on that occasion. They did not, however, have sexual intercourse during that period, because, according to the husband, he was suffering from some skin irritation and itching at that time. He went back to Chandigarh after attending the wedding. Thus, according to the husband, there was no sexual intercourse between the parties at all after the husband had left Sonthali for Punjab to work as an Astrologer in the middle of 1970. He discovered a couple of months after the marriage of his sister that the wife was pregnant. He pleaded that she had admitted before the women folk that she had become pregnant from some one other than her husband. She bluntly told his parents in his absence that he is of dark complexion, and that, therefore, she is not interested in living with him. She thus left Sonthali and went back to Pilani after about a month of his sister's wedding. Her father sent her back to Sonthali around the festival of Rakshya Bandhan in 1973. She kept quarrelling with his parents at Sonthali. Her father came to Sonthali and took her from there to Pilani on Aug. 18, 1973. The husband pleaded that he was not present in Sonthali when her father took her away from there to Pilani. The husband's father went to Pilani and pleaded with the wife's parents for a settlement and for return of the ornament
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top