Laxmilal v. Parwati, 2026

The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife were legally married under Hindu law, and had been living separately for around 27 years.

The separation occurred due to the wife’s job posting in another location, leading to long-term distance between the spouses.

During the subsistence of the first marriage (without divorce), the husband entered into a second relationship termed a “Nata Marriage”, allegedly with the wife’s consent.

The husband later sought divorce, arguing:

• The marriage had become a “dead matrimonial relationship”.

• Continued existence of marriage caused him mental cruelty.

The Family Court rejected the divorce petition, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

The Court held that Nata Marriage has no legal recognition as a defense to bigamy.

It ruled that custom cannot override statutory law, especially the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Accepting such a custom would make Section 5(i) meaningless and defeat the principle of monogamy.

The Court observed that no consent of a spouse can validate a second marriage during the subsistence of a first valid marriage.

It held that Section 29(2) is limited only to customs relating to dissolution of marriage, not to those permitting remarriage during subsistence of marriage.

The Court emphasized that recognizing Nata Marriage would violate Articles 14, 15, and 39, undermining gender justice and equality.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the Family Court’s order was upheld.

The Court strongly reaffirmed the principle that statutory law prevails over customary practices in matrimonial disputes.

It emphasized that monogamy under Section 5(i) is a matter of public policy, not subject to private consent or waiver.

The judgment highlights the gender inequality created by informal practices like Nata Marriage, where:

• The first wife remains legally married but socially abandoned.

• The second woman lacks legal recognition and matrimonial rights.

The Court adopted a constitutional approach, linking family law with Articles 14, 15, and 39 to ensure gender justice.

It narrowly interpreted Section 29(2) to prevent misuse of customs that contradict statutory prohibitions.

The decision reinforces that courts cannot be used to legitimize illegal or statutorily prohibited relationships under the guise of custom.