38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, December 19, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Panchayati divorce has no recognition in the eyes of law : Punjab and Haryana High Court [READ ORDER]

By Gautami Chakravarty      09 February, 2021 05:29 PM      0 Comments
Panchayati divorce has no recognition in the eyes of law : Punjab and Haryana High Court [READ ORDER]

A Criminal Writ Petition was recently filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court u/A 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to safeguard the lives of the petitioners by providing police help to the petitioners and further directing the respondent not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners whereby the Court considering the facts stated that the Panchayati Divorce has no recognition in the eyes of law.

However, with the petition itself, the judgment and decree passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the case of petitioner No.2 has been attached which clearly goes to show that the petitioners are aware of the law.

Petitioner No.1 was earlier married to one Mandeep Kaur and had taken a Panchayati Divorce on 19.06.2017, whereas, petitioner No.2 was earlier married to one Harjinder Singh and had got a divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Learned counsel has also not been able to show as to how this Court can provide protection to the petitioners as a couple when petitioner No.1 has not legally divorced his earlier spouse. In fact, the alleged marriage itself between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 would be illegal and against the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 inasmuch as this marriage has been contracted without petitioner No.1 being legally divorced.

The Petitioner in its contentions stated before the Court that they apprehended danger to their life and liberty. The petitioners approached this Court for protection of their life and liberty to live as a couple which cannot be considered in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was hels that the present petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners who have got married without petitioner No.1 being legally and validly divorced.

After the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, marriages and divorce qua Hindus is governed by the procedure as set out in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a complete Code and provides for the conditions of marriage as well as the procedure for divorce. The contention of the learned counsel that petitioner No.1 had sought and got a Panchayati divorce is thus an argument that cannot be accepted.

As stated above, the petitioners, as individuals, would always be at liberty to approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police for redressal of their apprehensions regarding threats to their life and liberty.

An argument was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are uneducated people and, hence, are not aware of the niceties of the law. In view of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 all customs and usages ceased to have an effect.

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have got married without petitioner No.1 obtaining a legally valid divorce from his first wife. The relatives of petitioner No.2 are against the relationship of the petitioners. The Hindu Marriage Act was enacted in the year 1955. However, the petitioners have since got married on 21.01.2021 at Gurudwara as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. 

It was noted thus that the learned counsel was relying upon a Panchayati divorce which has no recognition in the eyes of law. 

 

[READ ORDER]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-quashes-fir-against-r-ashoka-in-land-allotment-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Quashes FIR Against R. Ashoka in Land Allotment Case [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court quashes ACB FIR against Karnataka MLA R Ashoka in land allotment case, citing lack of sanction, malice and political vendetta.

18 December, 2025 07:58 PM
delhi-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-in-meghalaya-hotels-irctc-dispute-reiterates-bar-on-psu-curated-arbitration-panels
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Meghalaya Hotels–IRCTC Dispute; Reiterates Bar on PSU-Curated Arbitration Panels [Read Order]

Delhi High Court appoints sole arbitrator in Meghalaya Hotels–IRCTC dispute, reiterating Supreme Court’s bar on PSU-curated arbitration panels.

18 December, 2025 08:23 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-orders-aiims-to-form-secondary-medical-board-to-evaluate-passive-euthanasia-for-man-in-vegetative-state-for-13-years
Trending Judiciary
SC Orders AIIMS to Form Secondary Medical Board to Evaluate Passive Euthanasia for Man in Vegetative State for 13 Years [Read Order]

Supreme Court directs AIIMS to form a Secondary Medical Board to assess passive euthanasia for a man in a vegetative state for 13 years.

13 December, 2025 06:00 PM
endless-compassion-not-permissible-sc-bars-claims-for-higher-post-after-compassionate-appointment
Trending Judiciary
‘Endless Compassion Not Permissible’: SC Bars Claims for Higher Post After Compassionate Appointment [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that employees cannot seek higher posts after accepting compassionate appointment, calling such claims “endless compassion.”

13 December, 2025 06:54 PM
property-tax-appeal-only-tax-amount-payable-penal-interest-not-mandatory-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Property Tax Appeal: Only Tax Amount Payable, Penal Interest Not Mandatory: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules that municipalities cannot insist on penal interest for entertaining tax appeals; only the tax amount under Section 509(11) is required.

13 December, 2025 07:09 PM
sc-expands-ambit-of-posh-act-restrictive-interpretation-would-undermine-remedial-intent
Trending Judiciary
SC Expands Ambit of POSH Act: “Restrictive Interpretation Would Undermine Remedial Intent” [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules ICC at aggrieved woman’s workplace has jurisdiction under POSH Act, rejecting restrictive interpretation and reinforcing women’s right to safety.

13 December, 2025 07:13 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email