In a sharply worded and socially significant judgment, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan refused to grant divorce to a husband who had entered into a second 'Nata' marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. The court held that a person who destroys the matrimonial relationship through unlawful conduct cannot later seek equitable relief by blaming the other spouse.
Background of the Dispute
The husband and wife were married on 5 May 1992 according to Hindu rites in District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. They had two sons and initially lived together. The husband claimed disputes arose because the wife wanted to live separately from his family. The wife, a government teacher, was transferred in 1997 to Jhadol, where she lived separately with the children. The husband admitted that in 1997, while his marriage was still subsisting, he entered into a 'Nata marriage' with another woman named Krishna. He attempted to justify the second relationship by claiming the wife consented, which she denied.
Divorce Petition and Husband's Arguments
The husband sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court dismissed the petition, and he appealed to the High Court. He argued that the wife filed false criminal cases under Sections 498A, 406, 494, and 323 IPC, but the police filed a final report treating them as false. He also claimed the parties had lived separately for over 27 years, the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and the wife's awareness of the second marriage since 1997 amounted to mental cruelty.
The High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that the husband failed to prove cruelty. The court noted that both parties were government teachers posted at different locations, so separate residence was not convincing. Crucially, the husband's admission of the second marriage altered the dispute's complexion. The Family Court observed that even if the wife consented, such consent had no legal sanctity, as a Hindu spouse cannot enter a second marriage during the subsistence of the first lawful marriage. The High Court agreed.
He Who Comes Into Equity Must Come With Clean Hands
Justice Arun Monga, writing for the bench, delivered strong observations on the husband's conduct. The court stated that divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act is not an automatic right but an equitable relief granted to a party approaching with clean hands. The bench remarked: 'He cannot be permitted to light a fire and then seek compensation for the burns.' The husband engineered the circumstances of which he complained and could not seek the court's indulgence. He openly proclaimed his second marriage, publicly projected the second woman as his wife, fathered children with her, and then sought judicial recognition of the collapse of the first marriage he caused.
Court Rejects 'Nata' Defence
The court rejected the husband's justification of the second relationship through the customary practice of 'Nata'. It held that no custom can override the express mandate of parliamentary legislation. The court observed: 'The invocation of nata in the present circumstances is nothing but a transparent attempt to launder a void and statutorily prohibited second marriage through the garb of custom.' Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates monogamy, and any second marriage during the subsistence of the first is void under Section 11. Even if the first wife consented, it would not validate the second marriage, as the prohibition against bigamy is based on public policy and statutory command, not private arrangement.
The court emphasized that the husband's second marriage was the real cause of the matrimonial breakdown. It stated: 'A wrongdoer cannot manufacture a cause of action by first committing a wrong and then pointing to the injured party's reaction to that wrong as the basis for relief.' The wife's refusal to cohabit with a husband who openly took another woman as wife and fathered children could not be treated as cruelty or desertion. Her conduct was a natural and legally justifiable response to the husband's unlawful acts.
Constructive Desertion and Social Consequences
The court rejected the husband's desertion claim, noting both parties were government employees posted at different locations, so separate residence did not amount to desertion. Where one spouse leaves due to the other's wrongful conduct, it amounts to 'constructive desertion' by the wrongdoer. The wife had reasonable cause for refusing cohabitation after the husband's second marriage.
In an epilogue, the court discussed the wider social consequences of the 'Nata' custom. Women are the worst sufferers: the legally wedded wife is left abandoned without dignity and security, while the woman in the 'Nata' relationship is deprived of formal matrimonial rights. The court observed: 'The legal recognition of Nata as a valid defense would institutionalize the vulnerability of two sets of women simultaneously.' Referring to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the court held such practices incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. It remarked: 'Custom must walk hand in hand with conscience, and tradition must bow to justice.'
The court clarified that Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act protects customs relating to dissolution of marriage, but cannot legalize second marriages during the subsistence of the first. Holding that the husband failed to establish cruelty or desertion, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Family Court's findings.
Case: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1211/2023 Laxmilal vs Parwati
