Judgement Key Points

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is, whether a woman who has been married to a party who has already a spouse living can be treated as a spouse and thus be a member of the family unit for the purpose of the provisions of andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) act, 1973,

( 2 ) THE question arises in the following manner. The declarant pothula Manik Reddy had married one Radhamma as his first wife. While she is living and as he has no children, he also married one Satyamma. His second wife owns some lands in her name. But as there were no issues to him through Satyamma also, he adopted ore Sangareddy. The Land Reforms Tribunal included the lands which were in the name of Satyamma, in the declarant s family unit and aggregated them and computed the holding and fixed the ceiling area of the declarant. The first Tribunal in so computing, treated satyamma also as a member of the family unit and held that the family unit is entitled to only 1. 0000 S. H, and determined the excess as 0. 9635 S. H.

( 3 ) THE declarant along with his adopted son preferred an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that satyamma was married to the declarant according to the Hindu rites and they continued to be a married pair. As such, she must be treated as a spouse and must be included in the family unit of the declarant. Sri R. Narasimhareddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 read with section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage between the declarant and Satyamma is n ult and void and that Satyamma cannot be treated as a spouse. I see considerable force in this submission-

( 4 ) THE family unit as defined under section 3 (f) of the Act reads thus:- family Unit means- (i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters; if any; (ii) in the case of an individual who has no spouse such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters; (iii) in the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not; and (iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters. Explanation:- Where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring, if any, shall also be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor son is a member. " the definition as such contemplates an individual having more than one spouse. But section 5 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 lays down that for solemnisation of a marriage between two Hindus neither party must have a spouse living at the time of marriage. Any marriage performed contrary to that shall be null and void and may, on a petition under sec. 11 presented by either party thereto, be so declared by a decree of nullity passed by a Court. Section 17 in terms lays down that such a marriage amounts to an offence and is punishable for bigamy under the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled now that a marriage which is null and viod on the ground that one of the parties has a spouse living at the time of marriage, such a marriage is void ab initio and even the children born of such a marriage would be illegitimate.

( 5 ) IN Mulla s Hindu Law, 14th Edition, page 733, a passage reads thus:-"and where the marriage is null and void on the ground that one of the parties to the marriage had a spouse living at the time of the marriage it is competent to the other spouse to disregard such void marriage and enter into marriage with another person. A marriage which is void ab initio does not alter or affect the status of the parties nor does it create between them any rights and obligations which must normally arise from a valid marriage except such rights as are expressly recog

Click Here to Read the rest of this document