'Divorce cannot be on stamp paper': Allahabad HC Rejects Woman’s Claim for Compassionate Appointment
Court held that a divorce between a Hindu couple is valid only when granted by a competent court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act;
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking compassionate appointment after the death of her alleged husband, a government employee.
The petitioner, Dolly Rani, had moved the court challenging an April 5, 2025, government order denying her request for a job on compassionate grounds following the suicide of Neeraj Giri, a Junior Assistant in the Agriculture Department. She claimed to have married Giri in June 2021 after he allegedly divorced his first wife, Shital.
However, Justice Manish Mathur held that the claim lacked legal standing. Court noted that the only proof presented by Dolly was a marriage certificate issued by an Arya Samaj temple, and she failed to produce any legal decree of divorce between Giri and his first wife.
“The aspect of two having divorced appears to be based only on the basis of a stamp paper indicating divorce between the two. No such stamp paper has been brought on record and even otherwise divorce between a married Hindu couple can be effected only in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and not otherwise,” the court said.
Reinforcing that a valid court order is essential to establish a divorce, the high court observed that the petitioner’s claim to being the "only surviving wife" of the deceased was unsustainable. It further noted that Dolly’s name was neither in the service book of the deceased nor listed as a nominee in any official records.
Court also cited its own precedents, including Dolly Rani vs Manish Kumar Chanchal and Shruti Agnihotri vs Anand Kumar Srivastava, to reiterate that Arya Samaj certificates alone cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of a lawful marriage.
In conclusion, court dismissed the petition, stating, “This Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence to the petitioner".
The petitioner was represented by advocates Digvijay Singh Yadav and Dolly, while the State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel and advocate Naresh Chandra Mehrotra. Opposite party no. 5, Shital, was represented by advocates Neeraj Kumar Baghel and Piyush Pathak.
Case Title: Dolly Rani vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture Marketing And Foreign Trade Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Order Date: July 15, 2025
Bench: Manish Mathur