When Custom Clashes with Statute: Rajasthan High Court Slams the Doors on 'Nata' Divorce Pleas

The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has delivered a resounding affirmation of statutory monogamy, ruling that the customary practice of "Nata marriage" offers no shield against charges of bigamy and cannot be leveraged by a husband to seek divorce from his first wife.

In a judgment delivered on 12 May 2026 in Laxmilal v. Parwati , Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah dismissed the appeal of a man who contracted a second relationship while his marriage remained legally intact, observing that " a Court of law is not an instrument available to a wrongdoer to consecrate his wrong ."

The Husband's Five-Year Gamble Turns into 27 Years of Legal Limbo

Laxmilal and Parwati, both government school teachers, solemnised their marriage in 1992 according to Hindu rites. Two sons were born of the union. In 1997, merely five years later, Laxmilal entered into a "nata marriage" with one Krishna, claiming his wife had consented. He later recorded Krishna's name as his spouse on his Aadhaar card and fathered three children with her.

Parwati, transferred to a remote posting, refused to cohabit. Criminal complaints followed—some resulting in compromise, others ending in police final reports finding the allegations untrue. In 2023 the Family Court, Rajsamand dismissed Laxmilal's petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. He appealed.

The Husband's Narrative of Consent and Cruelty Collapses

Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that Parwati had knowingly allowed the second relationship, that false criminal cases constituted mental cruelty, and that 27 years of separation warranted dissolution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

The bench found none of these contentions persuasive. The court noted that even assuming consent had been given, " no consent of the existing spouse can validate such a marriage, because the prohibition is a matter of public policy and statutory mandate ."

"He Who Comes into Equity Must Come with Clean Hands"

The judges minced no words in describing the appellant's conduct:

"A man who openly proclaims a second marriage during the subsistence of a lawfully solemnized first marriage, who reduces his legally wedded wife to a state of abandonment... and who then has the boldness to approach Court of law with hands soiled by his own matrimonial wrongs, such a man must first be reminded of foundational and non-negotiable principle of matrimonial jurisprudence."

The court held that the second marriage itself constituted the decisive cause of the matrimonial breakdown. Any subsequent refusal by the wife to resume cohabitation, or her complaints to the police, flowed directly from the husband's own unlawful act and could not be characterised as either cruelty or desertion without reasonable cause.

Customary Practice Runs Headlong into Parliamentary Mandate

In an extended epilogue, the bench turned its focus to the broader implications of recognising "Nata" as a defence:

"Nata, as a form of customary marriage, must therefore be unequivocally disapproved of by society, condemned and thrown out altogether from the bounds of acceptable practice."

The judges clarified that Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act saves only customs relating to dissolution of marriage, not customs that permit a second marriage while the first subsists.

Information from contemporaneous reporting confirms that this view aligns with the court's consistent position that allowing such customs to override the statutory bar on bigamy would render the Hindu Marriage Act " meaningless, absurd and virtually repealed ."

Three Women, Two Broken Lives, One Clear Legal Message

The judgment highlights the double vulnerability created by Nata arrangements: the first wife left in legal limbo without divorce, and the second woman left without enforceable matrimonial rights. Both scenarios, the court concluded, violate the constitutional promises of equality and dignity.

The Final Word: Appeal Dismissed, Marriage Subsists

The High Court dismissed the appeal in clear terms:

"The appellant Laxmilal has failed to establish either cruelty or desertion without reasonable cause on the part of the respondent Smt. Parvati. He is thus not entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage on the grounds pleaded."

The ruling sends an unambiguous signal: a spouse who chooses bigamy must live with its legal consequences; the courts will not be used to legitimise abandonment already accomplished in fact. For advocates and litigants alike, the message is unequivocal—clean hands remain an essential prerequisite for matrimonial relief.