Customary divorce not accepted under provisions of law: HC
‘It affects personal liberty and fundamental rights of women’
04/08/2019, STAFF REPORTER,MADURAI
Hearing the plight of a woman, who was deserted by her husband, the Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday called it a classic case where an employee who committed serious misconduct was allowed to escape from the clutches of law; it led to denial of livelihood to the legally wedded wife.
It was hearing a petition filed in 2014 by Banumathi of Madurai, who sought a direction to New India Assurance Company to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her husband. Packiaraj for violating conduct rules. Marriage between the couple was solemnised at Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in 1976 and they have a girl child.
She alleged that her husband had developed an illegal relationship with a married woman, who had children. When she questioned her husband, he was said to have neglected the family before deserting his wife and child. She took up a job as a noon meal worker.
She filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court at Madurai dismissed the case on the ground that there was a delay in initiating proceedings and that a customary divorce was granted. This was accepted by the employer of her husband. Meanwhile, her husband retired from service with pension benefits.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that the Family Court had not considered the validity of the customary divorce with reference to the provisions of marriage laws. The marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. Customary divorce, even prima facie, might not be possible nor be accepted and such a concept of customary divorce was not in prevalence in Madurai with reference to the Act.
A person claiming any such customary divorce as a valid dissolution of marriage must establish that such a custom was in prevalence in society or in the particular community. An indisputable proof was required for establishing a customary divorce.
The concept of customary divorce is not normally accepted in our society or under the provisions of law, the court said.
The dissolution of marriage granted by the competent court of law alone must be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the marriage status of a person.
The Family Court had erred in its verdict. Its judgement could not be accepted as a valid dissolution of marriage.
The HC Bench said that customary divorce was a social evil. It was happening on account of ill-minded male chauvinists.
It was also affecting personal liberty and fundamental rights of women to adjudicate their issues before the competent forum, it said and allowed the woman to approach a competent forum for claiming maintenance.
The court directed the insurance company to initiate suitable action against employees who were accountable for dereliction of duty. It pulled up the authorities for failing to initiate any inquiry against their employee, who had retired with pension benefits. He had conveniently escaped from the clutches of disciplinary proceedings as well as from his responsibilities.
‘It affects personal liberty and fundamental rights of women’
04/08/2019, STAFF REPORTER,MADURAI
Hearing the plight of a woman, who was deserted by her husband, the Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday called it a classic case where an employee who committed serious misconduct was allowed to escape from the clutches of law; it led to denial of livelihood to the legally wedded wife.
It was hearing a petition filed in 2014 by Banumathi of Madurai, who sought a direction to New India Assurance Company to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her husband. Packiaraj for violating conduct rules. Marriage between the couple was solemnised at Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in 1976 and they have a girl child.
She alleged that her husband had developed an illegal relationship with a married woman, who had children. When she questioned her husband, he was said to have neglected the family before deserting his wife and child. She took up a job as a noon meal worker.
She filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court at Madurai dismissed the case on the ground that there was a delay in initiating proceedings and that a customary divorce was granted. This was accepted by the employer of her husband. Meanwhile, her husband retired from service with pension benefits.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that the Family Court had not considered the validity of the customary divorce with reference to the provisions of marriage laws. The marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs. Customary divorce, even prima facie, might not be possible nor be accepted and such a concept of customary divorce was not in prevalence in Madurai with reference to the Act.
A person claiming any such customary divorce as a valid dissolution of marriage must establish that such a custom was in prevalence in society or in the particular community. An indisputable proof was required for establishing a customary divorce.
The concept of customary divorce is not normally accepted in our society or under the provisions of law, the court said.
The dissolution of marriage granted by the competent court of law alone must be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the marriage status of a person.
The Family Court had erred in its verdict. Its judgement could not be accepted as a valid dissolution of marriage.
The HC Bench said that customary divorce was a social evil. It was happening on account of ill-minded male chauvinists.
It was also affecting personal liberty and fundamental rights of women to adjudicate their issues before the competent forum, it said and allowed the woman to approach a competent forum for claiming maintenance.
The court directed the insurance company to initiate suitable action against employees who were accountable for dereliction of duty. It pulled up the authorities for failing to initiate any inquiry against their employee, who had retired with pension benefits. He had conveniently escaped from the clutches of disciplinary proceedings as well as from his responsibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment