The Allahabad High Court holds that a marriage between Hindus can’t be dissolved by a compromise in Section 125 Cr. PC proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal which had been preferred against the order of a single Judge passed in a Writ Petition. The facts leading to the present appeal are that one Bhojraj Singh was an assistant teacher in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. He superannuated on 30.06.2012 and later died on 02.10.2021. The petitioner/appellant came up with a case of payment of family pension on the ground that she has contracted marriage with late Bhojraj Singh and has been residing as such for the last several years. In order to put-forth its case, the petitioner-appellant contended that though Bhojraj Singh had initially contracted marriage with contesting private respondent Usha Devi but the marriage ultimately did not succeed and the marital parties parted ways. 
 
Proceeding under Section 125 Cr. PC had been initiated by Usha Devi in which a compromise was arrived at, as per which, the parties had separated. It was therefore urged that once Usha Devi parted ways with the deceased employee no right survived in her as against the deceased employee. The deceased employee contracted marriage with the present petitioner-appellant. Various documents have been relied upon in order to prove the factum of marriage. The appellant also claimed to have obtained a succession certificate and relying upon its claim for family pension was put-forth by the appellant which has been rejected by the authorities. 
 
The writ petition filed against such order has also been dismissed. Learned Single Judge has returned a finding to the effect that the marriage legally contracted between Bhojraj Singh and Usha Devi could not have been dissolved except by a decree of competent court and merely in proceeding under Section 125 Cr. PC such marriage cannot be annulled. The claim of the appellant based on second marriage has therefore been rejected.
 
The High Court held thus:

So far as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. PC are concerned, such proceedings are in respect of payment of maintenance to the deserted wife. The scope of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. PC is limited i.e. with regard to determination of the amount of maintenance. In such proceeding the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved by the court inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the court would be limited to determination of the aspect of maintenance. Even with the consent of the parties, the jurisdiction of the concerned court under Section 125 Cr. PC cannot be expanded so as to concede the power with such a court to pass a decree of divorce. Law is well settled that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction if it is otherwise not vested by law.

Rajni Rani vs. State Of Up And 10 Others