The Rajasthan High Court ruled that cruelty in marital conflicts does not need to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" as is necessary in criminal prosecutions, overturning a family court judgement and granting divorce to a Bikaner lady.
On Monday, a division bench made up of Justices Arun Monga and Sunil Beniwal noted that the "preponderance of probabilities" criterion should be used to resolve marital conflicts rather than the more stringent criminal law requirement.
The court's Jodhpur Bench also denounced the customary "Aata-Sata" marriage arrangement, calling it a "inhuman barter system involving human lives" and calling it "legally and morally bankrupt" in a harshly worded ruling.In accordance with Hindu customs, the woman appellant was married in Bikaner on March 31, 2016. According to the "Aata-Sata" agreement, her brother married her husband's younger sister on the same day.
However, the girl refused to accept the child marriage after reaching adulthood, which led to arguments between the two families.
Due to dowry demands, the lady appellant claimed that she was physically and psychologically abused, and on March 19, 2020, she and her young daughter were expelled from their married home.
The police then prepared a chargesheet after she filed FIRs against her father-in-law and husband on grounds of dowry harassment.The order was subsequently contested in the high court by the disgruntled wife. The appellant woman's attorney claimed that dowry demands caused her to endure ongoing physical and psychological abuse.
However, the husband insisted that his sister's rejection of the union was the cause of the marital conflict.
The high court disagreed with the family court's conclusions, holding that the lower court made a "serious error" by confusing the problem of matrimonial cruelty between the spouses with the external family quarrel resulting from the "Aata-Sata" arrangement.
The woman's attorney stated at the hearing that in order to obtain peace of mind and end the marriage, she was prepared to forgo past, present, or future maintenance.

The woman's divorce petition was then granted by the court after the statement was recorded.
The top court made it clear that the divorce decision would not affect the couples' ongoing criminal cases or child custody disputes, which would proceed separately in compliance with the law.
The court made harsh observations against the "Aata-Sata" practice, citing the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It noted that when marriages are arranged as reciprocal exchanges between families, particularly when minors are involved, the practice turns into a coercive social mechanism where children, especially girls, are reduced to a "marital barter".
The court went on to say that these arrangements are similar to a "matrimonial hostage taking" in which one daughter's freedom and life are contingent upon another's compliance.