Introduction:
The case of Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Anr came before the Delhi High Court in which a CISF constable challenged his dismissal from service on the ground that he had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still legally subsisting. The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar, claimed that his first marriage had already been dissolved through a “marriage dissolution deed” signed before villagers and local witnesses. He argued that this dissolution deed was sufficient to validate his second marriage. However, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla categorically rejected this contention, holding that a Hindu marriage, once duly solemnized under law, cannot be dissolved by merely signing a private agreement or deed before village elders or social people. The Court upheld his dismissal under Rule 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and also noted that there was no scope for reducing his punishment since he had not rendered qualifying service for compulsory retirement.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar, who was serving as a constable in the CISF, challenged the disciplinary proceedings and his dismissal order. His main argument was that he had not violated the service rules because his first marriage had already been dissolved before he contracted the second marriage. He contended that on 15 October 2017, he and his first wife had executed a “marriage dissolution deed” in front of villagers, social persons, and witnesses. He submitted that such a deed was sufficient proof that his marriage had ended, and therefore, his second marriage should not be treated as a violation of law or service rules. The petitioner further argued that the dismissal was excessive and disproportionate, as the alleged misconduct did not merit such a harsh punishment. He attempted to rely on the fact that in previous cases, including Ex. Head Constable Bazir Singh v. Union of India, the punishment for a similar offence had been compulsory retirement rather than outright dismissal. He thus prayed that either his dismissal be set aside or at least modified to a lesser punishment so that he could be entitled to retirement benefits.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The Union of India and the CISF authorities strongly opposed the petition. They submitted that the petitioner’s defense was untenable in law because a Hindu marriage, once validly solemnized, can only be dissolved through a decree of divorce granted by a competent court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They argued that there exists no law that recognizes the dissolution of a Hindu marriage through a deed executed before village elders or community witnesses. Therefore, at the time the petitioner contracted his second marriage, his first marriage was still legally valid and subsisting. The respondents further argued that Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001, clearly prohibits an employee from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, unless specific permission has been granted by the competent authority, which was not the case here. They stressed that a member of a disciplined force like the CISF is expected to maintain a high standard of conduct and violation of service rules, especially involving moral turpitude such as bigamy, cannot be tolerated. They also contended that the disciplinary authority had already applied its mind to the proportionality of punishment and dismissal was justified given the seriousness of the misconduct. The respondents further highlighted that the petitioner could not even claim parity with the case of Bazir Singh because in that case the punishment was reduced to compulsory retirement on account of the length of service rendered, whereas in the present case the petitioner did not have qualifying service to claim such relief.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court, after hearing both sides, gave a detailed ruling. The Bench observed that the central question was whether a Hindu marriage could be dissolved through a so-called “marriage dissolution deed” executed before villagers or social people. The Court held that there is no law or principle that permits such a dissolution. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage can only be dissolved through a decree of divorce granted by a court of competent jurisdiction on specified grounds. Any attempt to dissolve it through private arrangements or customary deeds has no legal recognition unless such custom is specifically pleaded and proved in accordance with law, which was not the case here.
The Court noted that the petitioner himself admitted to signing such a deed rather than obtaining a decree of divorce from a competent court. Therefore, it was beyond dispute that at the time of his second marriage, the first marriage was still legally subsisting. Consequently, his second marriage was void in law and clearly in violation of Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, which prohibits contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of a spouse.
The Bench further observed that service in a disciplined force like the CISF requires strict adherence to rules and moral standards. Contracting a second marriage while the first subsists without legal divorce is a grave act of misconduct. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the case of Ex. Head Constable Bazir Singh v. Union of India. It held that in Bazir Singh, though the misconduct was similar, the Court reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement because the individual had rendered sufficient service to qualify for retirement benefits. In contrast, Ashwani Kumar had not completed qualifying service to be entitled to compulsory retirement. Therefore, the Court held that there was no scope to modify the punishment in his case.
The Court concluded that the petitioner had no valid defense. His argument based on a “marriage dissolution deed” was entirely baseless in law, and his conduct of entering into a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife amounted to a clear violation of both statutory law and service rules. The Bench therefore dismissed the writ petition, upholding his dismissal from service. The Court emphasized that a duly solemnized Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved by any means other than a court decree, and private arrangements like village deeds hold no legal sanctity.
The judgment carries significant importance because it reaffirms the principle that marriage under Hindu law cannot be dissolved by informal community arrangements, and it also reiterates the high standards of discipline expected from members of uniformed forces. By upholding the dismissal, the Court sent a strong message that attempts to bypass statutory procedures will not be tolerated, particularly in matters involving personal law and service conduct.