Marriage by Notarized Agreement or Contract is Legally Void Under Hindu Law

The appellant, Ram Kripal Singh, filed a writ appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing his claim for terminal benefits and family pension following the death of Smt. Suman Devi, a permanent employee of the Department of Tribal and Welfare.

The State contested the claim, asserting that the service records and a certificate from the Additional Collector identified Kok Singh Kushwaha as the legal husband, and noted three children from that marriage.

The appellant contended that Suman Devi had divorced Kok Singh in 1998 and married the appellant via a notarized "marriage agreement" in 2000.

The deceased’s service book and a 2004 clarification letter signed by her explicitly stated Kok Singh was her husband and denied any marital relationship with the appellant.

1. Whether marital ties under Hindu Law can be legally severed through a notarized divorce agreement.

2. Whether a "marriage by contract" or a notarized agreement constitutes a valid marriage under Hindu Law.

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to terminal benefits as the legal spouse of the deceased.

The court applied Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates that neither party have a spouse living at the time of marriage.

Under Sections 11, 13, and 13A of the Act, a marriage can only be dissolved through a formal decree of divorce by a competent court; private agreements for divorce are not legally recognized.

Marriage under Hindu Law is a sacrament, not a contract, and cannot be performed via a notarized agreement unless a specific custom is proven to exist.

The Court examined the original service records and found no evidence of a court-mandated divorce between Suman Devi and Kok Singh.

The Court reasoned that since the first marriage was never legally dissolved, any subsequent relationship or "marriage" with the appellant was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on a notarized marriage agreement, noting he failed to prove any valid custom allowing such a practice.

Even if a live-in relationship existed, the Court held that "long cohabitation" cannot presume a valid marriage when a prior legal marriage subsists, as such a presumption would violate the statutory requirements of Section 5.

The notarized agreements for divorce and marriage were declared legally invalid; consequently, the appellant has no legal status to claim terminal benefits and the writ appeal was dismissed.