The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has granted divorce to a woman, overturning a Family Court order that had rejected her plea. The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal made strong observations against the traditional 'aata-sata' marriage practice, describing it as 'legally and morally bankrupt' and akin to 'marital barter'.
Court's Observations on Cruelty
The bench held that cruelty in matrimonial disputes does not have to be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' as required in criminal trials. Instead, such cases are decided on the principle of 'preponderance of probabilities'. This distinction allowed the court to consider the woman's allegations of dowry-related physical and mental cruelty.
The 'Aata-Sata' Practice
The woman was married in Bikaner in 2016 under the 'aata-sata' practice, where her husband's minor sister was simultaneously married to her brother. The arrangement led to disputes when the minor sister refused to continue the marriage upon reaching adulthood. The woman alleged that she was forced out of her matrimonial home in March 2020 along with her minor daughter, following which an FIR was registered against her husband and father-in-law, and a chargesheet was filed.
Family Court's Error
The high court found that the Family Court had erred by conflating the separate family dispute arising from the 'aata-sata' arrangement with the woman's allegations of matrimonial cruelty. Setting aside that approach, the bench dissolved the marriage.
Woman's Statement on Maintenance
The woman told the court she was not seeking past or future maintenance for mental peace. Recording her statement, the court granted divorce while clarifying that pending criminal proceedings and child custody issues would continue independently.
Legal Observations
The court observed that no custom can override statutory law, specifically referring to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It added that consent shaped by childhood conditioning cannot be treated as free consent. The judgment serves as a significant precedent against regressive marriage practices.
