You can’t commit bigamy and then seek divorce: Rajasthan High Court comes down heavily on ‘Nata’ second marriage

In a sharply worded and socially significant judgment, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan refused to grant divorce to a husband who had entered into a second “Nata” marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, holding that a person who himself destroys the matrimonial relationship through unlawful conduct cannot later seek equitable relief by blaming the other spouse.The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah not only upheld the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition but also delivered extensive observations on bigamy, gender justice, matrimonial equity, and the inability of customary practices to override statutory law under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Background of the DisputeThe husband and wife got married on 05.05.1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born and the parties initially lived together as husband and wife.According to the husband, disputes began arising because the wife wanted to live separately from his family members. The wife, who was working as a government teacher, was transferred in 1997 to Jhadol, Tehsil Raipur, District Bhilwara, where she began residing separately with the children.The husband claimed that despite repeated efforts by him and his relatives to restore matrimonial relations, the wife refused to resume cohabitation. However, the dispute took a decisive turn when the husband himself admitted that in 1997, while his marriage with the respondent was still subsisting, he entered into a “Nata marriage” with another woman named Krishna.He attempted to justify the second relationship by claiming that the wife had consented to the arrangement.The wife denied this allegation and argued that it was the husband who had effectively abandoned the marriage after developing an illicit relationship with Krishna. She further claimed that he had even used his influence to get her transferred away from the matrimonial setup.Divorce Petition and Husband’s ArgumentsThe husband approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion.After the Family Court dismissed the petition, he approached the High Court in appeal.Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife had lodged false criminal proceedings against him and his family members under Sections 498A, 406, 494 and 323 IPC, pursuant to which an FIR was registered. According to him, the police later filed a final report treating the claims as false, and even the protest petition filed by the wife was dismissed.It was further argued that the parties had been living separately for more than 27 years, all attempts at reconciliation had failed, the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and continuation of the matrimonial relationship no longer served any practical purpose.The husband also attempted to argue that the wife was aware of the second marriage since 1997 and therefore her subsequent conduct amounted to mental cruelty towards him.The High Court reproduced substantial portions of the Family Court judgment and noted that the trial court had carefully examined the evidence before rejecting the divorce petition.The Family Court had found that the husband failed to produce any specific material showing how the wife allegedly subjected him to cruelty. The Court further observed that since both parties were government teachers posted at different locations, the allegation that the wife intentionally insisted on separate residence was not convincing.More importantly, the Family Court found that the husband’s own admission regarding the second marriage completely altered the complexion of the dispute.The Family Court had observed that even if the wife had hypothetically consented to the second marriage, such consent had no legal sanctity because a Hindu spouse cannot enter into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first lawful marriage.The High Court wholeheartedly agreed with this analysis.He Who Comes Into Equity Must Come With Clean HandsJustice Arun Monga, writing for the Bench, delivered some of the strongest observations while discussing the husband’s conduct.The Court observed that divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act is not an automatic right but an equitable relief granted by a “Court of conscience” to a party approaching the Court with clean hands.The Bench remarked:“He cannot be permitted to light a fire and then seek compensation for the burns.”The Court stated that the husband himself had engineered the very circumstances of which he was now complaining and therefore could not seek the Court’s indulgence.The Bench further observed that the husband openly proclaimed his second marriage, publicly projected the second woman as his wife, fathered children with her, and then sought judicial recognition of the collapse of the first marriage that he himself had caused.Court Rejects “Nata” DefenceOne of the central issues before the Court was whether the husband could justify his second relationship through the customary practice of “Nata”.The High Court held that no custom can override the express mandate of parliamentary legislation.The Court observed:“The invocation of nata in the present circumstances is nothing but a transparent attempt to launder a void and statutorily prohibited second marriage through the garb of custom.”The Bench emphasized that Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates monogamy and any second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void under Section 11 of the Act.The Court further clarified that even assuming consent had been given by the first wife, such consent would not validate the second marriage because the prohibition against bigamy is founded upon public policy and statutory command, not private arrangement.The High Court repeatedly stressed that the husband’s second marriage was the real and proximate cause of the breakdown of the matrimonial relationship.The Court observed:“A wrongdoer cannot manufacture a cause of action by first committing a wrong and then pointing to the injured party's reaction to that wrong as the basis for relief.”The Bench held that the wife’s refusal to cohabit with a husband who had openly taken another woman as wife and fathered children with her could not be treated as cruelty or desertion.According to the Court, the wife’s conduct after the second marriage was a natural and legally justifiable response to the husband’s own unlawful acts. The Court also rejected the husband’s allegation that the wife had deserted him.The Bench noted that both parties were government employees posted at different locations and therefore separate residence by itself could never amount to desertion.More significantly, the Court held that where one spouse leaves the matrimonial relationship because of the wrongful conduct of the other spouse, such conduct amounts to “constructive desertion” by the wrongdoer himself.The Court found that the wife had reasonable cause for refusing cohabitation after the husband entered into a second marriage and openly started living with another woman.In an unusually detailed epilogue, the High Court discussed the wider social consequences of the “Nata” custom.The Bench observed that women are the worst sufferers under such arrangements. The legally wedded wife is left abandoned without dignity and security, while the woman in the “Nata” relationship is deprived of formal matrimonial rights and legal protection.The Court observed:“The legal recognition of Nata as a valid defense would therefore institutionalize the vulnerability of two sets of women simultaneously.”Referring to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the Court held that such practices are fundamentally incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.The Bench further remarked:“Custom must walk hand in hand with conscience, and tradition must bow to justice.”The Court clarified that Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act merely protects customs relating to dissolution of marriage and cannot be stretched to legalize second marriages during the subsistence of the first marriage.Holding that the husband had failed to establish either cruelty or desertion on the part of the wife, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Family Court.D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1211/2023 Laxmilal vs ParwatiFor Appellant(s): Mr. Vikram Sharma For Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Patel(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)