Pact before panchayat not valid divorce: HC
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, April 1
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a compromise between couple for parting ways without sanction by the competent court of law cannot be treated as a valid divorce.
The ruling by Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi came in a case where the daughter of a deceased employee from his first marriage argued that his second wife could not raise a claim for service benefits as she had left his company after receiving a certain amount for parting ways.
Her counsel argued that the agreement dated August 1, 2005, between the parties –– the second wife and the employee –– was to be treated as a divorce for all intent and purposes. The amount received was to be treated as permanent alimony, keeping in view the compromise.
Justice Sethi asserted: “In the absence of any divorce granted by the competent court of law, an agreement between the parties before the panchayat cannot be treated as binding upon the parties concerned.”
The matter was brought to Justice Sethi’s notice after one of the daughters filed an appeal challenging the judgments and decree passed by the courts below vide which the second wife’s prayer for benefits was allowed.
The Bench was told that the appellant, another daughter and a son were born from the first marriage. The employee remarried in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies after his first wife’s death in 2003.
He, however, died in June 2013 while in service following which the benefits were released in his children’s favour. Aggrieved by the non-release of any benefit, the second wife filed a civil suit. Justice Sethi observed that their marriage was established keeping in view the evidence on record. Her claim was allowed, being his legally wedded wife. The children then filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which too was dismissed in September 2018, compelling them to move the High Court.
Justice Sethi observed that the courts below recorded the finding that a compromise with mutual consent between the parties without any sanction by the competent court of law could not be treated as valid divorce. It was a conceded position that the petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was not filed for divorce by mutual consent.
Justice Sethi asserted that the findings recorded by the courts below on the issue were in consonance with the settled principle of law that the parties, who solemnised the marriage in accordance with law, were bound by the marriage till the same was annulled after following due process of law.
Justice Sethi added that the second wife’s entitlement would be as per the rules governing the service, keeping in view that the employee had children from his first marriage, who were also entitled for the service benefits.
Not binding on parties
In the absence of any divorce granted by the competent court of law, an agreement between the parties before the panchayat cannot be treated as binding upon the parties concerned. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi
