Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68051132de741-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68051132de741-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68051132de741-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 3059,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Gender,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;font &gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 3059,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 2972
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Gender,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;font &gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p align="justify"><font ></font></p><p align="justify"><br /><font >In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br /></font></p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68051132de741-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68051132de741-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68051132de741-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 3059,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Gender,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;font &gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 3059,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 2972
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Gender,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;font &gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p align="justify"><font ></font></p><p align="justify"><br /><font >In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br /></font></p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr68051132de741-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr68051132de741-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr68051132de741-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr68051132de741-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 3059,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Gender,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;font &gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 2972,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 3059,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 2972
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Gender,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;font &gt;In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court&#039;s decision that &amp;quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&amp;quot;. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav&#039;s job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife&#039;s family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife&#039;s plea. However, the HC allowed the wife&#039;s appeal and reversed the family court&#039;s order. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat&#039;s decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;&amp;quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&amp;quot; it said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p align="justify"><font ></font></p><p align="justify"><br /><font >In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br /></font></p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 2972,
		'title' => 'Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"></font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br />
</font>
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 3059,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 2972,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Gender,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...',
	'disp' => '<p align="justify"><font ></font></p><p align="justify"><br /><font >In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br /></font></p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 2972,
	'title' => 'Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"></font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<br />
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br />
</font>
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 27 August, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court/articleshow/6440718.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'panchayat-rulings-have-no-legal-sanctity-rules-apex-court-by-dhananjay-mahapatra-3059',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 3059,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 2972
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra'
$metaKeywords = 'Gender,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '




In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. 


Handing out this ruling...'
$disp = '<p align="justify"><font ></font></p><p align="justify"><br /><font >In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that &quot;dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955&quot;. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >&quot;Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal,&quot; it said. <br /></font></p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Panchayat rulings have no legal sanctity, rules apex court by Dhananjay Mahapatra

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal sanctity attached to verdicts of village panchayats, including khaps, that touch personal lives of couples, even if the community accepts such decisions. Handing out this ruling in a case where a village panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had granted divorce to an Army man from his teacher wife, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan not only reversed the 13-year-old divorce decree but also said it had no legal value. Justice Chauhan, writing the order for the Bench, agreed with the Allahabad High Court's decision that "dissolution of marriage through panchayat, as per custom prevailing in that area and permitted in that community, cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955". Mahendra Nath Yadav and Sheela Devi were married in May 1990 but differences arose soon after as Yadav's job requirements meant there was no normal family life. In 1995, a Varanasi court allowed an application by Sheela directing the husband to pay her a maintenance of Rs 400 per month. She also initiated criminal cases under Section 498A against her husband and his relatives. As the relationship between the two deteriorated further, there was an attempt to settle the matter. Later, Yadav moved the panchayat for a divorce. The panchayat on June 7, 1997, decided that Yadav should pay a sum of Rs 30,000 to the wife's family. Once that was paid, the panchayat prepared a document, which was signed by the parties, stating that the marriage had come to an end. To give legal effect to this document, Yadav persuaded Sheela to move court for divorce by mutual consent. She did not agree. When the husband filed a divorce suit in a local court on grounds of desertion and cruelty, she sought restitution of conjugal rights. The family court in September 2000 decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the marriage stood dissolved through panchayat and dismissed the wife's plea. However, the HC allowed the wife's appeal and reversed the family court's order. When the husband appealed against the HC order, the SC issued notice to the wife but she did not respond. Deciding the appeal ex-parte, the SC held that if there was any legal sanctity to the panchayat's decision, then the husband would not have moved the family court to get it formalised. "Filing the petition itself means that none of the parties was of the view that divorce granted by the panchayat was legal," it said.