A recent judgment rendered by a Family Court in Mumbai expounded that prenuptial agreements, while not endowed with legally binding status within the legal framework of India, maintain relevance as instruments for discerning the intentions of the contracting parties.
This determination underscores the authority vested in the court pursuant to Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984, which confers the court with the prerogative to consider documents it deems pertinent for the resolution of disputes, even when such documents may not meet the criteria for admissibility under the Evidence Act.
Within the context of a divorce proceeding, the court granted a divorce to a 53-year-old man. In doing so, it took into account the prenuptial agreement as indicative of the couple’s forethought concerning potential issues and their mutual predisposition to effect separation in the event of the emergence of such issues.
“The prenuptial agreement dated 11/07/2016 can be taken into consideration just to understand intention of parties. This document shows parties were in middle age. Therefore, they are anticipated few things and thereby agreed to separate mutually, if any problem arise. The present respondent had declared that she is educated, qualified and can earn and able to take care of herself if such situation arises. The above agreement shows the parties agreed to enter into partnership and it was not a relation till last breath. This was the foundation of relation”, the court said.
The petitioner, a male party in this matter, asserted that he initially encountered the respondent, his former spouse, via a matrimonial website, culminating in their matrimonial union in the year 2016. Regrettably, their marital relationship proved to be of short duration, prompting the petitioner, ably represented by Advocate Kanupriya Kejriwal, to initiate legal proceedings seeking a divorce on grounds of cruelty.
The petitioner further contended that subsequent to his divorce from his previous spouse, he initially came into contact with the respondent in 2009 through an online platform. Their association was subsequently rekindled in 2012. As per the petitioner’s claims, the respondent exerted emotional coercion, asserting that her mother’s health was deteriorating due to her unwed status. The petitioner stated that, as a friend, he felt morally compelled to provide assistance. Consequently, they entered into the bonds of matrimony in July of 2016, but their marital alliance disintegrated within a mere two months.
The petitioner, in this case, advanced a series of allegations as grounds for seeking a divorce. These allegations encompassed ongoing verbal conflicts, disputes arising from divergent preferences in intimate matters, and alleged mistreatment of the petitioner’s mother and sister by the respondent. The petitioner further asserted that the respondent abruptly vacated the matrimonial domicile on September 12, 2016, taking with her some personal belongings, including jewelry gifted by the petitioner’s mother. He contended that she also convened an unannounced gathering of 8 to 10 individuals, purportedly her relatives, at his mother’s residence in an attempt to mediate the discord. The court observed that such an unscheduled mediation meeting lacked feasibility and suggested that the respondent had deployed force and perhaps unsavory elements in this context.
The respondent, in response, denied the petitioner’s allegations and proffered the perspective that the petitioner’s actions were orchestrated on the instructions of his mother and sister.
The court took cognizance of the petitioner’s rationale for refraining from physical relations and emphasized that the respondent had not contested the prenuptial agreement executed prior to their marriage.
In light of all the facts presented and considering the petitioner’s circumstances, the court found his behavior to be both reasonable and justifiable. The court also cast doubt on the credibility of the respondent, emphasizing the content of WhatsApp messages that illustrated the petitioner’s consistent care and support.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the respondent’s conduct constituted cruelty within the context of the marital relationship. It opined that inherent issues in the relationship had been present from the outset, and the marriage had been deteriorating over an extended period. In light of these circumstances, the court determined that there was no prospect for future reconciliation and, accordingly, rendered a verdict in favor of the petitioner, allowing for the dissolution of the marriage under the provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.