In a landmark judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared that a separation agreement between a married couple lacks legal standing and does not constitute a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. This ruling came while the court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband aiming to quash an FIR lodged by his wife, who alleged dowry harassment.
Case Overview:
The case, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 14908 of 2024, was presided over by Hon'ble Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia. Representing the petitioners, the married couple, was Advocate Shri Manoj Tiwari, while the State of Madhya Pradesh and the wife were represented by Public Prosecutor Shri Mohan Sausarkar.
Background:
On June 22, 2022, the couple executed an agreement in Vadodara, Gujarat, purporting it to be a mutual divorce by consent. However, the wife subsequently filed an FIR (Crime No. 388/2023) at Mahila Thana, Bhopal, accusing her husband of offenses under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In response, the husband challenged the FIR, arguing that since they had already "divorced" through their agreement, the charge under Section 498-A could not stand.
Legal Issues Addressed:
1. *Validity of the Vadodara Agreement as Divorce:* The court examined whether the agreement executed in Vadodara could be considered a valid divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. *Filing of FIR Post Alleged Divorce:* The court deliberated on whether an FIR under Section 498-A IPC could be lodged for acts of cruelty occurring before the alleged divorce.
3. *Validity of Legal Action Prohibition Agreement:* The court reviewed whether an agreement that prevents a party from pursuing legal action is valid under the Indian Contract Act.
Court’s Findings and Ruling:
1. *Invalidity of the Vadodara Agreement as Divorce:* The court noted that since the couple were not Muslims, they could not divorce by mutual consent without court intervention. It questioned the validity of a Notary notarizing such an agreement, stating, "A Notary cannot grant divorce by executing the agreement of separation."
2. *No Legal Sanctity to Separation Agreement:* The court asserted, "Since the agreement of separation has no sanctity in the eye of law, therefore it cannot be said that any divorce has taken place between the parties." It added that even if a divorce had occurred, an FIR under Section 498-A could still be filed for cruelty inflicted before the divorce.
3. *Prohibition of Legal Action Agreement Void:* The court dismissed the husband's contention that his wife agreed not to take legal action, deeming it "misconceived and contrary to Section 28 of the Contract Act," which invalidates agreements that restrict legal proceedings.
4. *Supreme Court Reference:* The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015), which held that a case for dowry harassment stands if the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home, even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted as true.
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal processes for divorce and the protection of legal rights against domestic cruelty, regardless of any private agreements to the contrary.
To get free legal advice: https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
