MATRIMONY AS A CONTRACT: TESTING THE LIMITS OF SECTION 56 IN MANOJ KUMAR @ MUNNA V. NITA BHARTI

This paper examines a recent judgment of the Patna High Court in Manoj Kumar Munna v. Nita Bharti, in which the court dissolved a marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, by applying the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The case presented an unusual situation; the wife had already remarried and had a child while her first marriage was still legally alive, following a lower court's error in finding that the original marriage never existed. Faced with no clean statutory solution and lacking the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the High Court reasoned that a marriage under the Special Marriage Act carries a contractual character, which opened the door to contract law principles. This paper argues that while the court's instinct to protect the parties from an unworkable legal deadlock was sound, applying the doctrine of frustration in this context raises real questions about judicial overreach and doctrinal accuracy. The respondent's remarriage was not an unforeseeable external event in the way frustration law typically requires; it followed from the parties' own choices and court proceedings. The supplementary reasoning on cruelty, offered by Justice Chaudhuri, is arguably the more defensible legal ground. Ultimately, this case is a symptom of a larger problem. Parliament has repeatedly ignored the Law Commission's recommendation to add irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, leaving courts to find creative workarounds. Until that legislative gap is filled, judgments like this one will keep testing the outer limits of what a High Court can do.