Bars to Marriage and Matrimonial relief | Family Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Bars of Matrimonial Relief 

 "One Who Comes To Equity Must Come With Clean Hands." 

These bars prevent a petitioner from taking advantage of their own wrongdoing or disability. The key bars of matrimonial relief include:

• Doctrine of Strict Proof
• Taking Advantage of One's Own Wrong or Disability
• Accessory
• Connivance
• Condonation
• Collusion
• Delay
• Any Other Legal Ground

A decree issued in violation of these bars is considered a nullity.

1. Doctrine of Strict Proof 

• The Doctrine of Strict Proof pertains to the burden and standard of proof in matrimonial cases.
• Similar to ordinary civil law proceedings, there are three common scenarios in matrimonial law:
•  Defendant Contests:  If the defendant appears in court and contests the claims made by the plaintiff, the petitioner must prove the grounds for matrimonial remedies beyond all reasonable doubts.
•  Ex-Parte Decision:  If the defendant fails to appear in court despite being served summons, the court may decide the case ex-parte, where the petitioner still needs to prove the claims beyond reasonable doubts.
•  Defendant Admits:  If the defendant admits the claims made by the plaintiff, the petitioner must still establish the grounds for relief beyond all reasonable doubts.
•  Case Law: Dasthane vs. Dasthane:  The court emphasized the importance of proving claims beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the petitioner had to prove mental harassment by the spouse against the respondent beyond all reasonable doubts.

2. Taking Advantage of One's Own Wrong/Disability 

• Relief cannot be granted if the petitioner is directly or indirectly responsible for the respondent's wrongful act.
• According to Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court bars the grant of relief if the petitioner is taking advantage of their own wrong or disability.
• Example: A husband cannot seek divorce if he is guilty of adultery against his wife.

3. Accessory 

• Under the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, and Indian Divorce Act, when a petition is filed on the ground of the respondent's adultery, the concept of accessory may come into play.
• Accessory, a term from criminal law, refers to a situation where a husband promotes or facilitates his wife's adultery by encouraging others to have intercourse with her or by keeping watch during such acts.
• In India, there are no reported cases regarding accessory in the context of matrimonial relief.

4. Connivance 

• Connivance is similar to accessory but differs in that accessory involves active participation by the petitioner in the respondent's wrongdoing, while connivance does not require such participation.
• To establish connivance, express or implied consent is necessary. For example, if a husband agrees with his wife to earn money through illicit intercourse, he is guilty of connivance.
• Connivance is a bar to matrimonial relief in cases of adultery, where the petitioner indirectly gives the respondent an opportunity or consent to commit adultery.

5. Condonation 

• Condonation involves the reinstatement of partners who have committed a matrimonial offense with the intention of repeating it in the future.
• It is a consequence of the actions of the parties involved.
• Case Law: Hearn v. Hearn:  In this case, the spouse continued to live with the respondent for ten years after the respondent's adultery, despite not having sexual intercourse during that time. This was considered condonation.
• Women who suffer from cruelty but continue to live or cohabit with their husbands, enduring humiliation in the hope of improvement in their behavior, may also be seen as condoning the behavior.

6. Collusion 

• Collusion, as stated in Section 23(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 34(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, is a bar to all forms of matrimonial relief.
• The act abolished collusion as a bar to petitions for declaring a marriage null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act, but it remains applicable under the Special Marriage Act.

7. Improper and Unnecessary Delay 

• Under Section 23(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, improper and unnecessary delay is a bar to relief in all matrimonial causes.
• Case Law: Niromo v. Nikka:  In this case, the wife experienced an 11-year delay in filing the petition. She explained that she remained quiet and had no intention of filing the suit for her husband's harassment, which began soon after she inherited property from her father. This explanation was accepted as reasonable.

8. Other Legal Grounds 

• Under Section 23(1)(e) of the Hindu Marriage Act, this is a general bar applicable to all matrimonial remedies.
• The act of cruelty committed without any intention, causing injury or hurt to the victim, is considered as cruelty under this provision.

Conclusion 

• The Marriage law not only provides for matrimonial reliefs but also includes provisions to bar such reliefs for individuals who are immoral in nature.
• These provisions are intended to be used with due diligence to ensure that no one is left behind in the pursuit of justice.