Family Law-I - Ravi Kumar

The Act at a glance

Item	Detail
Name	Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Act No.	25 of 1955
Date	18 May 1955
Purpose	To amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus
Application	Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, subject to s.2

Hindu law is a personal law — it applies by reference to personal and religious identity rather than territory, and is now heavily overlaid by statute.

Sources of Hindu law

Ancient sources	Meaning
Shruti	“To hear” — divine revelation, the Vedas
Smriti	“To remember” — recorded tradition
Customs	Riti-rivaj — locally observed practice
Commentaries & Digests	Explanation and summary of the Smritis

Modern sources	Meaning
Equity, justice, good conscience	English law principles, applied where no clear rule of Hindu law exists
Precedent	Judge-made law; earlier decisions followed in similar cases
Legislation	Law made by Parliament or State legislature

Schools of Hindu law

Mitakshara — right by birth

A child acquires a right in ancestral property from birth, and property is tied to the joint family. Founded on Vijnaneshwara’s eleventh-century commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti. Applies across most of India.

Dayabhaga — right on the father’s death

Children acquire no automatic right during the father’s lifetime; property devolves on his death. Founded on Jimutavahana’s Dayabhaga. Applies in West Bengal and Assam. Notably, Dayabhaga recognised the widow as a female heir considerably earlier than most other schools.

A distinction worth keeping clear when reading around the subject: Jimutavahana is the eleventh–twelfth century author of the Dayabhaga itself, while P.V. Kane is the twentieth-century scholar of the History of Dharmashastra — a secondary work about this tradition rather than a source within it.

Term	Meaning
Coparcener	A person who acquires an ownership share in ancestral property by birth
Inheritance	The property, assets and liabilities heirs receive through succession
Succession	The process by which a deceased person’s estate transfers to heirs

Marriage — objectives and forms

Manusmriti gives three objectives of marriage: Dharma Sampatti (spiritual duty and partnership), Prajaa Sampatti (progeny), and Rati Sukham (personal and physical fulfilment).

Approved forms	Unapproved forms
Brahma — bride’s father invites the groom; full rituals	Asura — bride-price; effectively a sale
Daiva — bride given to the priest as part of a sacrifice	Gandharva — love marriage by mutual consent
Arsha — token cattle given to the bride’s father	Rakshasa — forcible marriage against the bride’s will
Prajapatya — performed with blessings, no exchange	Paishacha — relations with a girl asleep or unconscious; the most condemned

Structure of the Act

Sections	Topic
1–4	Preliminary: title, extent, application, definitions, overriding effect
5, 7, 8	Conditions for a valid marriage; ceremonies; registration
9, 10	Restitution of conjugal rights; judicial separation
11, 12	Void and voidable marriages
13, 13A, 13B	Divorce — grounds, alternate relief, mutual consent
14–18	Bar within one year; remarriage; legitimacy; bigamy
19–23A	Jurisdiction and procedure; decree; counter-claim
24–28	Maintenance pendente lite; permanent alimony; custody; property; appeals

Void, voidable, separation and divorce — the distinction that matters

Feature	Void (s.11)	Voidable (s.12)	Judicial separation (s.10)	Divorce (s.13)
Status of marriage	No marriage in law from the start	Valid until annulled	Marriage continues	Marriage ends
Effect on remarriage	Free to remarry — marriage never existed	Free after decree	Cannot remarry	Free after appeal period (s.15)
Grounds	s.5(i), (iv), (v) violated	Impotence, s.5(ii), consent by force/fraud, pre-marital pregnancy	Same as s.13	s.13(1) & (2)

Key case law

Ceremonies and bigamy

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra — AIR 1965 SC 1564
For a second “marriage” to attract s.17 and s.494 IPC, it must be solemnised with the essential ceremonies. Without them there is no valid marriage in law — so bigamy cannot be made out. Links s.7 directly to s.17.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India — (1995) 3 SCC 635
Facts. Hindu husbands converted to Islam in order to contract a second marriage without dissolving the first. Held. The first marriage under the HMA continues despite conversion; the second marriage is void and the husband is liable for bigamy under s.494 IPC (now s.82 BNS). Why it matters. Conversion is a ground on which the other spouse may seek divorce under s.13(1)(ii); it does not dissolve the marriage by itself. Affirmed in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224. Classroom correction: the notes linked this case to cruelty; it is a bigamy and conversion authority.

हिंदी सार

Sarla Mudgal (1995): दूसरा विवाह करने के लिए धर्म परिवर्तन करने से पहला HMA विवाह समाप्त नहीं होता; दूसरा विवाह void है और s.494 IPC (अब s.82 BNS) के अंतर्गत bigamy बनती है। धर्म परिवर्तन दूसरे पति/पत्नी के लिए s.13(1)(ii) के अंतर्गत divorce का आधार है। Lily Thomas (2000) ने इसकी पुष्टि की।

Void marriages and legitimacy

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav — (1988) 1 SCC 530
A woman whose marriage is void under s.11 is not a “wife” for s.125 CrPC maintenance. A strict textual reading, later softened by s.16 and by Domestic Violence Act protections.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun — 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1087
Children legitimised under s.16(1)/(2) are entitled to a share in what would have been the parent’s share on a notional partition — including property tracing to coparcenary property once in the parent’s hands — but do not become coparceners themselves. Nuances the older “self-acquired property only” reading.

Cruelty — s.13(1)(ia)

Dastane v. Dastane — AIR 1975 SC 1534; (1975) 2 SCC 326
The standard of proof in matrimonial cases is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Cruelty need not be intentional. The same case is the leading authority on condonation — see the next section.

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi — (1988) 1 SCC 105
Cruelty may be physical or mental; there is no rigid definition, and it must be assessed on the facts, including the parties’ status and environment.

V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat — (1994) 1 SCC 337
Reckless, false allegations of unchastity or immorality made in pleadings themselves amount to mental cruelty, even without proof of the underlying facts.

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh — (2007) 4 SCC 511
The leading case on mental cruelty. Laid down illustrative, non-exhaustive guidelines — sustained humiliating conduct, a unilateral decision not to have children, prolonged separation without cause. No uniform standard can be laid down.

Desertion — s.13(1)(ib)

Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati — AIR 1957 SC 176
Desertion needs factum of separation plus animus deserendi — the intention to permanently end cohabitation — and absence of consent or just cause on the deserted spouse’s part. On the facts, the husband’s own conduct had driven the wife away, so desertion was not proved.

Restitution of conjugal rights — s.9

The constitutionality of s.9 produced a genuine split before it was settled:

T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah — AIR 1983 AP 356
Andhra Pradesh High Court struck s.9 down as violating the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21.

Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhry — AIR 1984 Delhi 66
Delhi High Court disagreed — s.9 does not force physical cohabitation, only resumption of matrimonial society, and serves a social purpose.

Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha — AIR 1984 SC 1562
The Supreme Court upheld s.9, affirming Harvinder Kaur and rejecting the approach in T. Sareetha. A restitution decree, even one passed on consent, can ground a s.13(1A) divorce petition after a year of non-compliance.

Irretrievable breakdown and mutual consent

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli — (2006) 4 SCC 558
Recommended that irretrievable breakdown be added as a statutory ground — courts cannot otherwise grant divorce on that basis alone under s.13 as drafted.

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur — (2017) 8 SCC 746
The six-month cooling-off period under s.13B(2) is directory, not mandatory, and may be waived where reconciliation is impossible and all issues are settled.

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan — 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544, Constitution Bench
The Supreme Court may use Article 142 to grant divorce directly for irretrievable breakdown and to waive the s.13B(2) period — a power belonging to the Supreme Court, not subordinate courts.

Maintenance and custody

Rajnesh v. Neha — (2021) 2 SCC 324
The controlling authority on maintenance. Issued comprehensive guidelines across HMA, s.125 CrPC, the D.V. Act and HAMA, including a mandatory standardised Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, criteria for quantum, and the date from which maintenance runs.

Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal — (2009) 1 SCC 42
In custody matters the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, not a parent’s legal right — and welfare can override a prior custody order if circumstances change.

Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India — (1999) 2 SCC 228
Read “after” in “father, and after him the mother” as meaning “in the absence of”, not only after death — so a mother may act as natural guardian during the father’s lifetime where the child’s welfare requires it.

हिंदी सार — प्रमुख निर्णय

Bhaurao Lokhande (1965): आवश्यक संस्कारों के बिना “दूसरा विवाह” कानूनी विवाह नहीं, इसलिए bigamy नहीं।
Dastane (1975): वैवाहिक मामलों में प्रमाण का मानक preponderance of probabilities; cruelty का आशय आवश्यक नहीं; condonation पर देखें s.23।
Samar Ghosh (2007): mental cruelty के उदाहरणात्मक दिशानिर्देश।
Bipinchandra (1957): desertion = पृथक्करण + स्थायी रूप से साथ छोड़ने का आशय (animus deserendi)।
Saroj Rani (1984): s.9 (restitution) संवैधानिक।
Amardeep Singh (2017): s.13B(2) की छह माह अवधि directory है; Shilpa Sailesh (2023): Article 142 के अंतर्गत irretrievable breakdown पर Supreme Court divorce दे सकता है।
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021): भरण-पोषण पर व्यापक दिशानिर्देश; Gaurav Nagpal (2009): custody में बच्चे का कल्याण सर्वोपरि।

Condonation and bars to relief (s.23 HMA)

ui.core_idea

Proving a ground is not enough; the court must also be satisfied that no statutory bar applies.

Section 23(1) HMA directs the court to grant relief only if, among other things, the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong, has not condoned cruelty (s.23(1)(b)), has not connived at or condoned adultery, the petition is not collusive, and there is no improper delay.

आधार सिद्ध करना पर्याप्त नहीं; न्यायालय को यह भी देखना है कि कोई statutory रोक लागू न हो।

Section 23(1) HMA के अनुसार relief तभी मिलेगी जब याचिकाकर्ता अपनी गलती का लाभ न उठा रहा हो, उसने cruelty को क्षमा (condone) न किया हो (s.23(1)(b)), adultery में मिलीभगत या क्षमा न हो, याचिका collusive न हो, और अनुचित विलंब न हो।

Element of condonation	Meaning	Hindi
Knowledge	The offended spouse knew of the matrimonial offence	अपराध की जानकारी
Forgiveness	Express or implied forgiveness of that offence	स्पष्ट या निहित क्षमा
Restoration	The offending spouse is restored to the former position, usually by resuming cohabitation	पूर्व स्थिति की बहाली, सामान्यतः सहवास
Conditional	Condonation is conditional on future good conduct; fresh cruelty revives the condoned offence	सशर्त — नई cruelty पुराने अपराध को पुनर्जीवित करती है

Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane — AIR 1975 SC 1534; (1975) 2 SCC 326
Facts. The husband sought annulment or divorce alleging cruelty through abusive conduct. The couple continued to cohabit and a child was born after the alleged acts. Held. Matrimonial facts are proved on a preponderance of probabilities; the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty, but the husband had condoned it by continuing cohabitation, and her later conduct was not grave enough to revive it. Relief refused. Why it matters. The leading authority for both the civil standard of proof and condonation under s.23(1)(b).

Worked example

R humiliates S publicly over months. S moves out, then returns after R apologises, and they live together for a year. R then repeats the humiliation. S's petition can rely on the earlier conduct: condonation was conditional, and the fresh cruelty revives it. Had R's later conduct been trivial, the earlier cruelty would stay condoned, as in Dastane.

Term (class glossary)	Meaning	Where it matters
Condonation	Defence in divorce proceedings that the offended spouse expressly or impliedly forgave the offence	s.23(1)(b) HMA; Dastane
Concubine	A woman living with a man without the benefit of marriage	s.18(2)(e) HAMA — ground for a wife's separate residence
Condemnation	Taking private property for public use on payment of compensation (US term; in India, compulsory acquisition)	Not family law — listed here only to avoid confusion with condonation

Sources to cite. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.23 (bare text, India Code). Dastane as cited.

Quick case-to-section map

Section	Leading case(s)
s.7 / s.17 — ceremonies, bigamy	Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande; Sarla Mudgal; Lily Thomas
s.11, s.16 — void marriage, legitimacy	Yamunabai Adhav; Revanasiddappa
s.13(1)(ia) — cruelty	Dastane; Shobha Rani; V. Bhagat; Samar Ghosh
s.23(1)(b) — condonation of cruelty	Dastane
s.13(1)(ib) — desertion	Bipinchandra v. Prabhavati
s.9 — restitution	T. Sareetha; Harvinder Kaur; Saroj Rani
s.13 — irretrievable breakdown	Naveen Kohli; Shilpa Sailesh
s.13B — mutual consent	Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
s.24, s.25 — maintenance	Rajnesh v. Neha
s.26 — custody	Gaurav Nagpal; Githa Hariharan

These notes cover the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, below, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The other personal law systems governing marriage in India are not yet covered here.

HAMA at a glance

Part	Sections	Coverage
Preliminary	1-4	Extent, application, definitions and overriding effect
Adoption	5-17	Validity, capacity, giving, eligibility, conditions, effects and safeguards
Maintenance	18-28	Wife, widowed daughter-in-law, children, aged parents and dependants
Savings	30	Savings provision

Sections 5-9: the doorway to valid adoption

Section 5: an adoption contrary to the chapter is void.
Section 6: adopter qualified + giver qualified + child qualified + statutory conditions satisfied.
Sections 7 and 8: capacity of male and female Hindus to adopt.
Section 9: persons capable of giving a child in adoption.

Four-part validity test

Adopter + giver + child + conditions

If any one link fails, the claimed adoption cannot be treated as valid under HAMA.

हिंदी सार

HAMA की संरचना: Sections 1–4 प्रारंभिक; 5–17 दत्तक ग्रहण; 18–28 भरण-पोषण; 30 savings। वैध दत्तक के चार अंग: दत्तक लेने वाला सक्षम + देने वाला सक्षम + बच्चा योग्य + शर्तें पूरी। कोई एक कड़ी टूटे तो दत्तक void (s.5)।

HAMA and JJ Act adoption routes

Indian law provides more than one route to adoption. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 operates as Hindu personal law. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides a secular, regulated route administered through the statutory adoption framework.

HAMA, 1956	JJ Act, 2015
Applies within Hindu personal law	Secular route available irrespective of religion
Private personal-law adoption subject to statutory capacity and ceremony requirements	Regulated process for children legally free for adoption through CARA and recognised agencies
Centres on a valid act of giving and taking	Centres on the statutory child-protection and adoption process
Validity is governed by HAMA	Since the 2021 amendment, the District Magistrate issues the adoption order

Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India — (2014) 4 SCC 1
The Supreme Court recognised the statutory adoption route under the juvenile-justice law as an enabling secular option. Personal law does not prevent a person from choosing that statutory route.

हिंदी सार

भारत में दत्तक ग्रहण के दो मार्ग हैं: HAMA, 1956 (हिंदू personal law, जिसमें “देना और लेना” केंद्रीय है) और JJ Act, 2015 (धर्म-निरपेक्ष, CARA के माध्यम से नियंत्रित; 2021 संशोधन के बाद adoption order District Magistrate देता है)। Shabnam Hashmi (2014): personal law किसी व्यक्ति को JJ Act का मार्ग चुनने से नहीं रोकता।

HAMA Sections 10 and 11

Section 10 — who may be adopted

The person must be Hindu.
The person must not already have been adopted.
The person must be unmarried, unless an applicable custom permits adoption of a married person.
The person must be under fifteen, unless an applicable custom permits adoption above that age.

Kondiba Rama Papal v. Narayan Kondiba Papal — AIR 1991 SC 1180
An adoption above the statutory age limit was upheld because the relevant custom permitting adoption above fifteen had already received judicial recognition. The case illustrates the difference between relying on an established custom and merely asserting an unproved one.

Section 11 — other conditions for a valid adoption

For adoption of a son, the adoptive parent must not have a living Hindu son, son's son, or son's son's son.
For adoption of a daughter, the adoptive parent must not have a living Hindu daughter or son's daughter.
If a male adopts a female child, the adoptive father must be at least twenty-one years older than the child.
If a female adopts a male child, the adoptive mother must be at least twenty-one years older than the child.
The same child cannot be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons.
The child must be actually given and taken in adoption with the intention of transferring the child into the adoptive family. Datta homam is not essential unless an applicable custom requires it.

In plain terms

Custom must do real legal work

A custom is not a general escape clause. The party relying on it must show that the custom applies, unless the custom has already been judicially recognised. This is why Kondiba and cases where custom was never pleaded or proved produce different outcomes.

हिंदी सार

Section 10: दत्तक लिया जाने वाला व्यक्ति हिंदू हो, पहले दत्तक न लिया गया हो, अविवाहित हो और 15 वर्ष से कम आयु का हो — अंतिम दोनों में प्रथा (custom) छूट दे सकती है (Kondiba, 1991)।

Section 11: पुत्र गोद लेने पर जीवित हिंदू पुत्र/पौत्र/प्रपौत्र न हो; पुत्री गोद लेने पर जीवित हिंदू पुत्री या पुत्र की पुत्री न हो; विपरीत लिंग के बच्चे को गोद लेने पर कम से कम 21 वर्ष का अंतर; एक बच्चा एक साथ दो लोगों द्वारा नहीं; वास्तविक रूप से देना-लेना आवश्यक, datta homam अनिवार्य नहीं।

HAMA: effects and safeguards (Sections 12–17)

Section 12: effect of adoption

From the date of a valid adoption, the child is treated as the child of the adoptive parents for statutory purposes and the birth-family ties are generally replaced, subject to three safeguards.

Safeguard	Meaning
Marriage prohibition	The child cannot marry a person whom the child could not have married while in the birth family.
Vested property retained	Property already vested in the child remains with the child, subject to attached obligations.
No divesting	Adoption does not take away an estate already vested in another person.

Family-tree illustration
Birth family -> valid adoption -> child enters adoptive family. The general transfer of family status operates with the three Section 12 safeguards above.

Section 13: adoption does not deprive adoptive parents of their power to dispose of property.
Section 14: determines who is treated as the adoptive mother in specified situations.
Section 15: a valid adoption cannot be cancelled by the adoptive parents or child.
Section 16: a registered adoption document signed by giver and taker raises a rebuttable presumption of statutory compliance.
Section 17: payment or reward in consideration of adoption is prohibited.

हिंदी सार

Section 12: वैध दत्तक की तिथि से बच्चा दत्तक परिवार का माना जाता है, तीन सुरक्षाओं के साथ: जन्म-परिवार की विवाह-निषेध सीमाएँ बनी रहती हैं; बच्चे में पहले से निहित सम्पत्ति उसी के पास रहती है; किसी अन्य में निहित सम्पत्ति छीनी नहीं जाती। s.15: वैध दत्तक रद्द नहीं हो सकता; s.16: पंजीकृत दत्तक-विलेख से अनुपालन की खंडनीय उपधारणा; s.17: दत्तक के बदले भुगतान निषिद्ध।

HAMA: maintenance of wife (Section 18)

Section 18 begins the maintenance chapter. It recognises a Hindu wife's right to maintenance during her lifetime and separately addresses circumstances in which separate residence may be claimed without forfeiting maintenance.

Keep the doctrines separate

Adoption and maintenance are different statutory questions

Sections 5-17 answer whether an adoption is valid and what it changes. Section 18 begins a new inquiry about maintenance rights and the facts affecting entitlement.

Case-placement caution
Daniel Latifi, Shah Bano, Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine are important constitutional or personal-law developments, but they should not be presented as HAMA adoption authorities. Joseph Shine removed criminal liability for adultery; it did not erase adultery from matrimonial law.

Section 18(2) — when a wife may live separately and still claim maintenance

Clause	Ground	Hindi
(a)	Desertion by the husband without reasonable cause or consent	बिना कारण परित्याग
(b)	Cruelty causing reasonable apprehension of harm in living with him	क्रूरता
(c)	Omitted by the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 (formerly leprosy)	हटा दिया गया
(d)	He has another wife living	दूसरी पत्नी जीवित
(e)	He keeps a concubine in the same house or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere	उपपत्नी (concubine)
(f)	He has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion	धर्म परिवर्तन
(g)	Any other cause justifying separate living	अन्य उचित कारण

Section 18(3): a wife is not entitled to separate residence and maintenance if she is unchaste or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion. Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 governs how claims under HAMA, the HMA, s.125 CrPC (now s.144 BNSS) and the D.V. Act are adjusted against one another.

Section 18(3): यदि पत्नी unchaste है या धर्म परिवर्तन से हिंदू नहीं रही, तो उसे पृथक निवास और भरण-पोषण का अधिकार नहीं। Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) बताता है कि HAMA, HMA, s.125 CrPC (अब s.144 BNSS) और D.V. Act के दावों का समायोजन कैसे हो।

हिंदी सार

Section 18 हिंदू पत्नी को जीवनभर भरण-पोषण का अधिकार देता है, और s.18(2) उन परिस्थितियों को बताता है जिनमें वह पृथक रहकर भी भरण-पोषण माँग सकती है। दत्तक (ss.5–17) और भरण-पोषण (s.18 से) अलग प्रश्न हैं।