Hindu Marriage Is Not A Contract That Can Be Dissolved By Mutual Consent: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court ruled that Hindu marriage is not a contractual agreement and cannot end through mutual consent alone. Instead, the dissolution of a Hindu marriage can only occur through legal processes and on specific grounds, the court clarified.

In a significant decision, the court set aside a previous decree that had granted a divorce by mutual consent, declaring it invalid after one party withdrew their consent. The court also directed the lower court to issue a new ruling based on the revised circumstances of the case.

The division bench, comprising Justice SD Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, delivered this judgment in response to an appeal filed by a woman named Pinki, challenging a 30 March 2011 decree by the Additional District Judge of Bulandshahr, which had granted her husband’s divorce petition.

Advocate Mahesh Sharma represented the appellant in court.

Case Background

The court noted that Pinki’s husband, Pushpendra Kumar, a soldier, initially filed the divorce petition in February 2008.

At that time, Pinki had agreed to the divorce, stating she did not wish to continue living under her husband’s restrictions.

The case lingered for three years, and during this period, mediation efforts failed. Meanwhile, the couple had a second child, prompting Pinki to reconsider her stance on the divorce.

She then withdrew her earlier consent, submitting a new written statement stating that the birth of their second child proved her ability to bear children, a point that had been previously questioned.

The High Court observed that, despite Pinki’s withdrawal of consent and the submission of a new statement, the lower court erroneously proceeded to grant the divorce decree without properly considering the change in circumstances.

The court ruled that after Pinki retracted her agreement, issuing the decree based on mutual consent was incorrect.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the lower court had erred by failing to hear the husband’s objections and properly consider the merits of the case before making its ruling.

The High Court criticized the lower court for compelling the parties to adhere to their initial statements, stating that no court has the right to force either party to maintain a previously stated position if circumstances change.

The court annulled the 2011 divorce decree and directed the subordinate court to review the case afresh, taking into account the wife’s revised stance and the husband’s response.

It also emphasized that Hindu law requires following legal grounds for divorce, rejecting the idea that mutual consent alone ends a marriage.

Also Read: Atishi Set To Become Delhi’s Next Chief Minister As Kejriwal Steps Down