Back
Hindu Marriage Not a Contract, Husband Can't Walk Away After Losing Interest:
In a resounding affirmation of the sanctity of matrimony under Hindu personal law, the has held that a marriage is a sacrament, not a contract, and one spouse cannot seek divorce simply because they have "lost interest" in the relationship. The Division Bench dismissed a husband’s appeal against a family court order refusing to dissolve his 21‑year‑old marriage, declaring that the husband could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.
The judgment, delivered on , by Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf , underlines that the institution of marriage under the , is meant to be lifelong, and a party who unilaterally abandons the conjugal bond cannot later invoke the law to walk away.
A Love Story That Turned Sour
The appellant, Sri Manjukiran , and the respondent, Smt. Bindu M B , entered into a love marriage in , overcoming caste barriers. A daughter was born from the union, who is now on the verge of attaining majority. However, after two decades, the husband filed a petition for divorce, first in , which was dismissed after the wife successfully obtained a decree for . In , the husband filed a fresh petition under , contending that the parties had not resumed cohabitation after the decree of restitution and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Competing Claims before the Court
Before the , the husband argued that despite his sincere efforts, the wife had refused to rejoin him and that the marriage had become a dead letter. The wife, on the other hand, maintained that she had always looked after her husband and his parents with affection, and that she had never insisted on a separate residence. She denied any quarrel or incompatibility and asserted her willingness to continue the marriage.
The Family Court, after examining the evidence, found that the husband had admitted in his cross‑examination that he had not resumed marital life because he was not interested in doing so. The trial court concluded that no cruelty was proved and dismissed the divorce petition.
The High Court’s Reasoning: No Divorce for the Unwilling Spouse
Upholding the Family Court’s order, the High Court made it clear that the husband’s own conduct barred him from obtaining relief. The bench observed that the husband wanted to take advantage of his own wrong – he had admitted that he had no interest in the marriage and had therefore not made any genuine attempt to resume cohabitation. The court rejected the plea that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, noting that the husband himself was the cause of the breakdown.
The most significant part of the ruling lies in the court’s exposition of the nature of Hindu marriage. The Division Bench emphatically stated:
“The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party.”
This observation, drawn from the centuries‑old understanding of Hindu marriage as a , reinforces the principle that matrimonial obligations cannot be discarded at will. The court further remarked:
“The person who fell in love with the respondent and fathered a girl child who is now almost a major, has come before the Court stating that he is left with no interest in the marriage and therefore, decree of divorce be granted.”
Thus, the High Court refused to permit a unilateral declaration of disinterest to become a ground for divorce.
Key Observations from the Bench
- : Hindu marriage is a sacred union, not a mere contractual arrangement terminable at the convenience of one party.
- No Aid to Wrongdoer : A spouse who voluntarily abandons the marriage cannot later seek divorce on the ground of .
- Admission of Disinterest : The husband’s clear admission that he had no interest in resuming marital life was fatal to his case.
- Lifelong Commitment : The law expects spouses to honour their marital vows for life, barring legally recognised grounds for dissolution.
Decision and Implications
The appeal was dismissed, and the Family Court’s decree refusing divorce was upheld. The High Court found no reason to interfere, and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.
The ruling sends a strong signal that courts will not countenance divorce petitions based on a mere whim or change of heart. It reinforces the understanding that under the Hindu Marriage Act, the ground of non‑resumption of cohabitation after a decree of cannot be used by the spouse who has deliberately refused to resume the relationship. The judgment is likely to be cited in future cases where one party attempts to convert their own abandonment into a legal ground for divorce.
