In a recent, remarkable, righteous and rational decision titled Smt. Krishna Veni Vs The Union of India and others in WPA No. 2346 of 2018 delivered on February 18, 2021, the single Judge Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that merely obtaining a customary divorce will not attract the exception envisaged under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been made absolutely clear that the validity of such a divorce has to be established by a deed of declaration. Very rightly so!
To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this notable judgment wherein it is put forth that, “The present challenge has been preferred by Smt. Krishna Veni, the second wife of Sardar Natha Singh (since deceased), who was a freedom fighter getting pension from the Central Government under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 till his demise on August 25, 1984. The petitioner, relying on a deed of declaration of divorce, purportedly executed by respondent no.11, the first wife and Sardar Natha Singh, the husband of the petitioner, claimed widow pension under the said Scheme, which was refused by a communication dated March 6, 2012 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on the ground that such deed of divorce dated December 19, 1956 was not acceptable under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the absence of a decree for divorce obtained from a competent court of law.”
To put things in perspective, it is then laid down in para 10 that, “For Section 29(2) of the 1955 Act to be invoked, it has to be established by the party relying on a custom that the right of the party was recognized by custom, to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage. In the present case, the petitioner did not approach the civil court for declaration regarding validity of the divorce deed.”
As it turned out, the Bench then states in para 11 that, “There was nothing to prevent the petitioner from approaching the competent civil court for such declaration. The burden and initial onus lies on the petitioner to prove the existence of a custom having the force of law, to be proved by evidence – oral or documentary – in order to attract the benefit of Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Needless to say, it is then stated in para 12 that, “Section 2(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates that the Act applies to Sikhs as well. Thus, the provisions of the Act, including Section 13 thereof (pertaining to divorce), applies to Sikhs in general. Admittedly, the petitioner, respondent no.11 and their deceased husband are/were Sikhs by religion. Hence, the marriage between the respondent no.11 and her deceased husband could only be dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by a competent court on any of the grounds as mentioned in Section 13 of the Act, unless the existence of any contrary custom was proved by evidence.”
Be it noted, it is then pointed out in para 13 that, “. In order to justify an exception to Section 13 within the purview of Section 29(2), the petitioner had to approach a civil court and establish by evidence that the dissolution of the marriage between the respondent no.11 and her deceased husband was recognized by custom. All Sikhs do not come within the purview of such exception, unless any custom to the contrary is proved by cogent evidence. The respondent-authorities do not have the jurisdiction in law to decide the matrimonial status of the private parties and/or the validity of the deed of declaration, which could only be done by adduction of adequate evidence before a civil court. Unfortunately, neither does the writ court, with its constraints in taking evidence on disputed questions of fact, has the scope to decide such issue.”
While elaborating further along with the relevant case law, it is then envisaged in para 14 that, “In Gurdit Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue which arose in a civil suit. The trial court had decreed the marriage-in-question to be valid. The appellate court reversed such decree on the premise that the marriage between the parties was invalid, being not justified by any custom. Upon the issue being remitted to the trial court, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence, the trial court answered the issue regarding the existence of such custom in the negative, which was endorsed by the appellate court. In second appeal, the High Court held that a custom was proved under which Mst. Angrez Kaur, respondent could validly marry Sunder Singh, even though her first husband was alive. While considering such matter, the Supreme Court observed that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant had admitted the existence of a custom permitting the Hindu husband to divorce his wife. Upon such premise, the Supreme Court proceeded to endorse such view.”
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench then observes in para 15 that, “ In Balwinder Singh (supra), the matter in issue before the Supreme Court also arose from a civil suit, wherein the trial court declared the marriage solemnized between the parties in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremony as null and void and granted a decree of nullity of marriage. The appellate court had found that the evidence adduced by the appellant was not sufficient and reliable enough to establish the existence of the custom amongst the Sikhs Jats of District Amritsar to which District the appellant and its parents belonged, under which the marriage between the appellant and his previous wife could be dissolved otherwise than through court as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
It would be pertinent to mention that it is then stated in para 16 that, “While dealing with such question, the Delhi High Court considered the evidence adduced by the parties and sanctioned the dissolution of marriage by execution of a deed of divorce.”
Simply put, it is then mentioned in para 17 that, “The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Doddi Appa Rao (supra), was also considering a case where a civil court had decreed a suit for declaration that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant therein was dissolved as per caste custom and usage. In such context, it was held by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the Central Administrative Tribunal ought to have honoured such decree.”
It would be useful to also note that it is then specified in para 18 that, “In G. Thimma Reddy (supra), the learned Single Judge considered several factors apart from the registered deed of divorce, including that the factum of divorce was disregarded on a flimsy ground that the stamp affixed to the document of divorce was in the name of a wrong person. The court also took into consideration the fact that the spouses were living separately and in possession of lands settled in their favour, for which no need for divorce was there. Oral evidence was also adduced by several witnesses, one of them a caste elder who had also attested the document. P.Ws 1 to 3 therein spoke of existing custom in the caste of the spouses sanctioning such divorce. Moreover, the adjudication in the said report was in the context of a land dispute between the parties.”
As a corollary, it is then pointed out in para 19 that, “As such, in each of the judgments cited by the petitioner, a valid decree, sectioning the respective documents of divorce, had been passed by competent civil courts. In the present case, however, no such decree was obtained by the petitioner.”
In addition, it is then also brought out in para 20 that, “That apart, it is pleaded by the writ petitioner herself that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, sanctioned payment of political pension to the first wife, that is, respondent no.11 with effect from August 26, 1984 by a letter dated February 14, 1986 and Pension Payment Order was issued accordingly in favour of respondent no.11. For whatever reason such pension might have been withheld subsequently, the initial grant of pension to respondent no. 11 is an endorsement of the fact that the first wife was found eligible for such pension by the respondent authorities and she had already started getting pension.”
Perhaps more crucially, it is then elaborated in para 21 that, “It is relevant to mention here that a suit-in-question was filed by respondent no.11, inter alia, for declaration that she was the only married wife and the only widow of Sardar Natha Singh (since deceased) and was entitled to widow pension and that the present petitioner was not the wife and widow of Sardar Natha Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the said suit was dismissed for default and the subsequent restoration application filed by respondent no.11 met with the same fate. As such, it is contended that respondent no.11 is debarred from raising the contentions on which declaration was sought by her in the dismissed suit.”
To state the obvious, the Bench then notes in para 22 that, “Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure debars a plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action in the event of dismissal of a suit for default. However, it is well-settled that such a dismissal, ipso facto, would not take away the right of the plaintiff which was under consideration in the suit. Such right, if available otherwise to the plaintiff in accordance with law, subsists despite the dismissal of the suit for default. The plaintiff in such a suit may very well raise a defence on the basis of such right in a different suit or legal action and/or may agitate the same right in a suit filed by her on a subsequent cause of action.”
Of course, it is then rightly stated in para 23 that, “Thus, in the present case, the dismissal of the suit of respondent no.11 for default does not preclude the said respondent from staking her claim before any authority other than a civil court, that too in a suit filed by her on the self-same cause of action, and/or setting up a defence in the writ petition on the basis of such claim.”
Most significantly, it is then aptly observed in para 24 that, “In the utter absence of any evidence, let alone conclusive, that the divorce decree executed purportedly between respondent no.11 and her deceased husband was endorsed by any valid custom, the exception envisaged in Section 29(2) of the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act would not be attracted. Thus, the spouses had to revert back to Section 13 of the Act, which sanctions dissolution of marriage only by a decree of divorce, for the dissolution of marriage to be valid in the eye of law.”
What’s more, it is then also pointed out in para 25 that, “Such facts, coupled with the fact that pension was granted earlier in favour of respondent no.11 upon a valid sanction being issued by the respondent-authorities, it would be unjust to deprive respondent no.11 from such pension at the behest of the petitioner, merely on the basis of the petitioner’s assertion on oath in this writ petition that a deed of divorce, supported by valid and recognized customs, was executed between respondent no.11 and her deceased husband.”
As was anticipated, the Bench then goes on to add in para 26 that, “ I must note that, in view of the long-pending litigation between the private parties, it would be lucrative to direct pension to be paid equally between the petitioner and respondent no.11. However, such a course of action would be grossly illegal. Although my empathy goes fully with the petitioner, who is an unemployed lady of about 63 years as per her own affidavit, this court does not have the power to enact law but is bound by the provisions of law as the Parliament, in its wisdom, chose to promulgate. Where a conflict arises between individual conscience of the concerned Judge and judicial conscience, supported by law of the land, the former has to give way to the latter.”
Now coming to the concluding paras. It is held in para 27 that, “In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails. Accordingly, WPA No.2346 of 2018 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.” Finally, it is then held in the last para 28 that, “Urgent certified copies of this order shall be supplied to the parties applying for the same, upon due compliance of all requisite formalities.”
To conclude, the sum and substance of this noteworthy judgment is that that merely obtaining a customary divorce will certainly not attract the exception envisaged under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It merits no reiteration that for Section 29(2) of the 1955 Act to be invoked, it has to be established by the party relying on a custom that the right of the party was recognized by custom to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage. Very rightly so!