Hindu marriage cannot be abolished like this, Delhi High Court said in a very important decision
The Delhi High Court justified the dismissal of CISF Constable’s second marriage during the first marriage of the CISF constable.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has said in an important judgment that Hindu marriage cannot be abolished by signing the marriage dislution deed in front of the villagers or ‘people of the society’. The court made it clear that there is no such legal system or principle, under which Hindu marriage can be abolished in this way. According to the report by Livelaw, the decision was pronounced by the division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla. The bench said, “We do not know any law or rules, under which the duly rich Hindu marriage can be eliminated by signing a divorce in front of the people of the village.”
What was the whole matter?
The case is related to the constable of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), against which disciplinary action was taken. It was alleged that she got married second during her first marriage. The constable claimed that he had ended his first marriage by signing a divorce in front of the people of the village on 15 October 2017. But the court rejected this argument.
The court said that the fact is undisputed that he married second during the first marriage. The court clarified, “The Hindu marriage cannot be abolished in this way (by signing a divorce).” The court also said that under Rule 18 of the CISF rules, if an employee marries a second marriage after joining the job, it would be considered a violation of the rule. In this case, the constable was dismissed from the job due to violation of CISF Rule 182.
Why did the court dismiss the petition?
The constable filed a petition in the Delhi High Court against his dismissal. But the court said that it has no concrete rescue. The court in its judgment in an old case, X. Head constable cited Bajir Singh vs Union of India. In that case also compulsory retirement was given as a punishment. However, in this case, the court said that since the petitioner did not complete the required service period for compulsory retirement, it is also not possible to reduce the punishment. Because of this, the court dismissed the petition.
Latest india news
