Bengaluru (Aryavarth): In a peculiar case, the Madras High Court addressed the issue of a couple seeking a divorce after living together and having a child. The appellants, referred to as "X" and "Y," entered into a registered agreement and lived together as a couple for several years. However, they now wish to end their relationship. The first appellant is Hindu, while the second appellant is Christian. They filed a joint petition for mutual divorce under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act.
However, the Family Court dismissed their petition since their marriage was not solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. As a result, the appellants appealed the decision to the Madras High Court.
During the hearing, the appellants' counsel argued that their registered agreement and living arrangement should be sufficient to establish their legal marriage. They claimed that the registration under the Registration Act should validate their marital status. They pointed out that only after 2009 was the power of the Sub Registrar taken away through an amendment to the Registration Act.
The court acknowledged that marriage, as a recognized social institution, is upheld by the law and reflects the social and moral ideals of society. However, the law does not currently recognize live-in relationships as marriages. Legal recognition is granted only if the marriage is solemnized according to personal or secular laws, such as the Special Marriage Act. Merely living together by virtue of an agreement does not qualify as a legal marriage, and therefore, divorce cannot be claimed based on such an arrangement.
The court also noted that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellants' claim for separation. The Family Court Act was enacted to resolve disputes related to legally recognized marriages and family matters. Since marriages formed through contracts have not yet received legal recognition for the purpose of divorce, the Family Court cannot entertain claims for divorce in such cases.
Considering the above points, the Madras High Court directed the Family Court to return the petition filed by the appellants, stating that it is not maintainable. The court granted the parties the liberty to seek remedies elsewhere. The appeal was thus disposed of.
Get our Digital Edition at Rs 1100 per year. 51% used for Gau Seva, 49% used for our operations. Subscribe here - http://pages.razorpay.com/TAVEDE
