Contested Divorce and Judicial Due Process: Bombay Hc Reinforces Evidentiary Requirements in Family Court Proceedings
- INTRODUCTION
In Mansi Bhavin Dharani v. Bhavin Jagdish Dharani, Family Court Appeal No. 24 of 2022 (Bombay HC Mar. 24, 2023), the Bombay High Court reaffirmed a crucial procedural safeguard in contested divorce cases under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”). The bench—Justices R. Dhanuka and Gauri Godse—held that a family court may not grant a divorce decree on the basis that “the marriage is dissolved in parties’ hearts and minds” unless there has been a proper trial or admission of facts. This article unpacks the factual background, legal reasoning, precedents cited, and doctrinal and practical ramifications of the decision. - FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND APPELLATE CHALLENGE
The marriage, solemnised in 2013, encountered serious matrimonial discord, leading the wife to file a divorce petition for cruelty under HMA Section 13(1)(i‑a) in 2017. The husband contested the petition and by 2019, opposed her allegations. In 2021, he applied for a decree “on admission” under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, arguing that the marriage had dissolved in the parties’ hearts and minds, despite pending maintenance proceedings. The Family Court granted divorce in February 2022. The wife appealed, asserting that these procedural shortcuts were impermissible absent evidentiary withdrawal or a formal admission. - LEGAL ANALYSIS BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURTa. REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENCE OR ADMISSION
The High Court clarified that a decree based on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is valid only when one party unequivocally admits every material fact showing entitlement to relief without preserving any rights or qualifications. In the present case, no such admissions—whether oral or written—were made; the wife persistently denied cruelty and maintained her petition for maintenance. Allowing judgment under these circumstances amounted to judicial guesswork.b. INHERENT JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC
The appeal court rebuffed any attempt by the family court to invoke Section 151 CPC to bypass procedural safeguards. The High Court emphasised that Section 151 cannot displace specific procedural requirements—namely, a proper trial or admission under Order XII. As such, inherent powers are not a substitute for established protocols. - PRECEDENTIAL ANCHORS
Though the judgment did not cite Supreme Court rulings directly, it echoed established doctrine on admissions and trials in contested civil proceedings. The reasoning resonates with the Supreme Court’s insistence on due process in matrimonial matters, as seen in cases interpreting Order XII admissions and protective family law standards. - DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Dharani judgment reasserts the twin pillars of procedural fairness and evidentiary requirement in contested divorces, reinforcing that substantive dissolution regardless of personal estrangement, must follow formal procedures. Key implications include:FOR FAMILY COURTS
Summarily granting divorce on informal assumptions undermines judicial integrity and may deny ancillary reliefs such as maintenance.FOR LITIGANTS
A party seeking divorce must either substantively vindicate allegations through evidence or make explicit admissions to facilitate summary adjudication.FOR PROCEDURE REFORM
The ruling may trigger calls to clarify or amend rules under Order XII and relevant family court regulations, ensuring alignment with substantive matrimonial justice. - CONCLUSION
Mansi Bhavin Dharani reaffirms that contested divorce petitions cannot be disposed of without respect for due process. By insisting on either a full trial or unqualified admissions before granting divorce, the Bombay High Court protects litigants’ rights and upholds judicial accountability. The decision aligns with broader trends in Indian family law that resist shortcuts in adjudicating deeply consequential personal rights.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce cases in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
