Prenuptial Agreements Not Enforceable In India But Can Be Considered To Determine Parties’ Intent: Mumbai Court

The court noted that Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984 empowers the court to consider documents which in its opinion, assist it to deal with a dispute, even if they are inadmissible under the Evidence Act.

The court granted divorce to a 53-year-old man, observing that the prenuptial agreement demonstrated the couple’s anticipation of potential issues and their mutual willingness to separate should any problems arise.

“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 man (petitioner) claimed that he met his former wife (respondent) through a matrimonial website and married her in 2016. However, they separated only a couple of months later, prompting him, represented by Advocate Kanupriya Kejriwal, to seek a divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

The petitioner claimed that after his divorce from his first wife, he met first the respondent in 2009 through an online platform and subsequently reconnected with her in 2012. He alleged that the respondent emotionally pressured him into marriage by claiming that her mother's health was deteriorating due to her unmarried status and as a friend, he had to help her. They go married in July 2016 and separated just two months later.

The petitioner cited several instances of cruelty in his plea, including the woman's repeated verbal attacks and conflicts stemming from differences in their sexual desires. He further alleged that the woman mistreated his mother and sister. The woman denied these accusations and countered that the petitioner was acting at the behest of his mother and sister.

The petitioner stated that on September 12, 2016, the respondent left his mother's house, taking some of her belongings, including jewellery gifted by his mother. He alleged that she even visited his mother's place without prior information with 8 to 10 individuals, which she claimed were her relatives, in an attempt to settle the dispute. The court said that no settlement meeting was possible without prior information, and opined that the respondent used force and anti-social elements.

The court noted that the petitioner has provided reasons for refusing physical relations, and the respondent had not challenged the pre-nuptial agreement dated July 11, 2016, until filing the petition.

The court noted that the petitioner refused physical relations and denied the respondent entry into their home, actions typically regarded as serious. However, the facts of the current case are peculiar, the court opined. Both parties were in their 45-year age group, and the petitioner had endured the loss of his family members. Respondent's mother played a crucial role in their relationship, the court noted.

Considering all these factors and the admissions made by the petitioner, the court found his conduct natural and justifiable. The court doubted the woman’s credibility, emphasizing WhatsApp chat evidence that revealed the petitioner’s consistent care and support.

The court ultimately concluded that the petitioner’s mental state, affected by the loss of family members, and the pressure exerted by the respondent and her mother forced him into the relationship. The prenuptial agreement, executed to prevent future litigation, illustrated their initial intentions to form a partnership rather than a relationship, the court opined.

The court declared that the woman’s conduct amounted to matrimonial cruelty. It opined that there was hardly any real relationship from the beginning, and the marriage had become deadwood for some time. The court found no potential for future harmony and ruled in favor of the petitioner, invoking Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.