Ram Kripal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

Suman Bai was employed as a permanent Chowkidar in the Department of Tribal Welfare.

During her service, she passed away.

The appellant, Ram Kripal Singh, claimed to be her husband and sought employment benefits, including pension.

The authorities denied his claim on the ground that the official service records mentioned Kok Singh as Suman Bai's husband.

The appellant contended that Suman Bai had divorced Kok Singh through a notarised divorce agreement in November 1998.

He further claimed that after the said divorce, he married Suman Bai through a notarised marriage agreement.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant failed to establish a valid marriage with Suman Bai.

Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal.

The Court held that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved merely by executing a notarised divorce agreement.

The Court observed that no decree of divorce had been obtained under Section 13 or Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Consequently, the Court held that the first marriage between Suman Bai and Kok Singh continued to subsist in the eyes of law.

The Court further held that a Hindu marriage cannot be solemnised merely through a notarised marriage agreement.

The Court rejected the appellant's plea that such marriages were recognised by custom, observing that no evidence was produced to establish the existence of any such valid custom.

The Court reiterated that marriage under Hindu law is not a contract and therefore cannot be created by executing a notarised agreement.

The Court observed that, at best, the appellant's relationship with Suman Bai could be treated as a live-in relationship.

However, such a relationship did not confer upon the appellant the legal status of a husband for claiming service or pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment reaffirms the mandatory statutory scheme under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which recognizes dissolution of marriage only through a decree of a competent court, except where specifically recognised by law.

The Court correctly distinguished Hindu marriage from a contractual relationship, emphasizing that marital status cannot be created or terminated through private notarised agreements.

By rejecting the plea based on alleged custom, the Court reiterated that customs contrary to statutory law must be strictly proved through convincing evidence.

The decision safeguards legal certainty in matters of matrimonial status, succession, pension, and service benefits.

The judgment also clarifies that although live-in relationships may receive legal protection in certain contexts, they do not automatically create the legal status of marriage.

The ruling reinforces that public authorities are entitled to rely upon legally recognized marital status while determining service and pensionary claims.

The decision serves as an important precedent discouraging informal practices of executing notarised marriage or divorce agreements in place of statutory procedures.

The judgment strengthens the rule that matrimonial rights and obligations under Hindu law arise only through legally recognized modes of marriage and divorce.