The Rajasthan High Court has declared that individuals entering a second marriage under the customary 'Nata Pratha' without legally dissolving their first marriage cannot claim legal protection, as the practice violates the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 'Nata Pratha' is an ancient custom prevalent in parts of Rajasthan, particularly among tribal and rural communities, permitting men and women to leave their spouses and cohabit with new partners without a formal divorce or legal marriage.
Court's Strong Observations
A division bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah emphasized that such practices must be "thrown completely out of the acceptable boundaries of society." The court stated that customs cannot override statutory law or constitutional morality, asserting, "Tradition must walk with conscience, and customs must bow before justice."
Case Background
The ruling came during the dismissal of a man's petition seeking divorce from his first wife after he entered into a 'nata' arrangement. The appellant argued that his first wife had been living separately for years and had filed a dowry harassment complaint against him, claiming cruelty and desertion. However, the wife countered that she was forced to live separately after her husband began a 'nata' relationship with another woman without obtaining a divorce.
Bigamy and Wrongdoing
The high court upheld the family court's refusal to grant divorce, holding that the husband could not benefit from his own wrongdoing. It ruled that when a man openly cohabits with another woman as his wife, the first wife's refusal to live with him or her decision to approach the police does not constitute cruelty but is a justified response. The bench also noted that if a spouse is compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to the other's conduct, the responsibility for desertion lies with the wrongdoer.
Impact on Women
The court highlighted the detrimental effects of 'Nata Pratha' on women, stating that it leaves both the first wife—legally married but effectively abandoned—and the second woman—without legal recognition or rights to maintenance, inheritance, or property—vulnerable. Recognizing such relationships as legally valid would institutionalize insecurity for women and render the Hindu Marriage Act "meaningless and ineffective," the court concluded.
