States High court

Bombay High Court Rules ‘Divorce Rights End with Deceased Individual’

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by the family members of a deceased Pune resident, ruling that the right to seek divorce is personal and expires with the individual.

A bench comprising Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Shailesh Brahme rejected the appeal, stating, “The right to seek divorce was a personal right of the deceased and the cause of action does not survive” for the family members. The bench further noted that the petition for divorce by mutual consent was abated upon the husband’s death.

Aniket and his wife, Shalaka, in October 2020 initiated a mutual consent divorce petition at the Dhule family court. However, Aniket passed away from Covid-19 on April 15, 2021, before the petition could be finalized.

Two weeks after Aniket’s death, Shalaka sought to withdraw her consent for the divorce, asking the court to dismiss the petition due to her estranged husband’s passing. Aniket’s family, including his mother and two brothers, opposed this request and sought recognition as his legal heirs to continue the matrimonial litigation.

The family court accepted Shalaka’s argument that the cause of action did not survive Aniket’s death and dismissed the divorce petition. Aniket’s family appealed to the Aurangabad bench of the high court, arguing that Shalaka had already received half of the ₹2.50 lakh settlement and that only a procedural second motion under Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, remained. They contended that Aniket had effectively completed the process for a divorce by mutual consent through substantial performance of the settlement terms.

The high court rejected this argument, clarifying that Section 13-B requires both parties to submit a second motion (affirmation) for a divorce decree. The judges explained that the family court can only proceed with an inquiry if both parties jointly make such a motion. Without this joint motion, no further inquiry could be conducted.

The court concluded that Aniket’s heirs had no legal standing to pursue the petition or appeal the family court’s decision under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

Defamation Case: “Raut Didn’t Take Care & Caution, Caused Complainant Agony”- Mumbai Court

A Mumbai court has convicted Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut in a defamation case…

10 hours ago

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Tytler Case: Delhi Court Records Statement Of Lakhvinder Kaur

The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday recorded the emotional testimony of Lakhvinder Kaur, widow of…

10 hours ago

Satyendar Jain Says Probe In Money Laundering Case Incomplete, Seeks Default Bail In Delhi HC

Former minister Satyendar Jain, currently in jail, urged the Delhi High Court on Thursday to…

10 hours ago

Tirupati Laddus Row: SC To Hear Pleas Seeking Court-Monitored Probe On Oct 4

The Supreme Court is set to hear a series of petitions on Friday regarding the…

11 hours ago

SC Scraps Caste-Based Discrimination In Prisons, Terms It Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a groundbreaking judgment on Thursday, declaring caste-based discrimination in…

11 hours ago

Mahadev Betting App Case: SC Gives Bail To Chhattisgarh Businessman

The Supreme Court on Thursday has granted bail to Chhattisgarh businessman Sunil Dammani, who was…

11 hours ago