Back
High Court Of Calcutta
NIRENDRA KRISHNA MITRA, D. K. JAIN
RANJIT KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA - Appellant
Versus
SABITA BHATTACHARYYA - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 166 Of 1994
Decided On : 12/22/1995
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - MAINTENANCE - VOID MARRIAGE - HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - S. 18 - VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE - INTERPRETATION - LEGALLY MARRIED WIFE - RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE - VOID MARRIAGE - NO MAINTENANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the legally married wife of the defendant, filed a suit for maintenance and residence in the property described in the plaint schedule. The defendant denied the marriage and claimed that he was a Christian by birth and was married to the added defendant according to Christian rites.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was not the legally married wife of the defendant as their marriage was void ipso jure since the defendant had a subsisting marriage with the added defendant at the time of the alleged marriage with the plaintiff. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as the expression "Hindu wife" in Section 18 of the Act means a legally married wife.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the legally married wife of the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff was not the legally married wife of the defendant as their marriage was void ipso jure since the defendant had a subsisting marriage with the added defendant at the time of the alleged marriage with the plaintiff. The court relied on Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which states that for a lawful marriage, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as the expression "Hindu wife" in Section 18 of the Act means a legally married wife. The court rejected the argument that the expression "Hindu wife" should be interpreted to include a wife whose marriage is void, as this would render Section 18(2)(d) of the Act otiose.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 30,000/- as damages to the respondent.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A woman who enters into a void marriage is not entitled to maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as the term "Hindu wife" in Section 18 refers only to a legally married wife (!) .
The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was found to be void because the defendant had a subsisting marriage with another woman at the time of the alleged marriage with the plaintiff (!) .
The court emphasized that for a woman to claim maintenance under the Hindu law, she must be a legally married wife. A marriage that is void or invalid does not confer the status of a wife, and thus, she is not entitled to maintenance under the Act (!) .
Evidence such as marriage registration, certificates, and testimonies can establish the validity and existence of a marriage. However, the court may discard evidence if it is not properly proved or if it is issued after the institution of the suit, unless supported by statutory provisions that give it overriding authority (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that a woman living with a man for a prolonged period, who induces her to believe she is his wife, may create a presumption of marriage. Nonetheless, if the marriage is subsequently proved to be invalid or void, she cannot claim maintenance based solely on her cohabitation or presumption (!) .
The legal position is that only a valid, legally recognized marriage confers the right to maintenance under the relevant law. A void marriage, or one entered into in contravention of the law, does not establish such a right (!) .
In cases where a woman has lived with a man and had a child, but the marriage is found to be invalid or void, the man may still be held liable for damages or moral responsibility, but not for statutory maintenance (!) .
The court may award damages for immoral conduct or misconduct, even if the woman is not entitled to statutory maintenance, as a form of moral reparation (!) .
These points collectively highlight that the entitlement to maintenance under Hindu law depends on the marriage's validity, and that a void or invalid marriage does not establish such entitlement. The evidence and legal principles must be carefully examined to determine the status of the marriage and the rights arising therefrom.
( 2 ) THE defendant No. 1 / appellant in his written statement, however, categorically denied and disputed the allegations of the plaintiff that she was her lawfully married wife and that he had any obligation, to maintain her and that the alleged marriage had taken place at all, but admitted that the plaintiff/respondent, who was a widow, became intimate with the appellant and a child was born out of the intimacy, but he never induced the plaintiff to marry him and no marriage was ever solemnised between them. In fact the defendant No. 1 and the added defendant Smt. Purnima Bhattacharyya were Indian Christians by birth and they were married according to the Christian rites on or about 3rd February, 1945 at St. Johns Church, Calcutta and the marriage was still subsisting. The added defendant/ respondent No. 2 Smt. Purnima Bhattacharyya in her written statement, also denied and disputed the plaint case altogether and categorically stated inter alia that she and the defendant No. 1/ appellant were Indian Christians by birth and a marriage solemnised between them on 3rd February, 1945 at St. Johns Church, Calcutta according to the Christian rites and customs and the said marriage is now still subsisting.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff/respondent No. 1 examined herself and also one Maniklal Chatteriee as witnesses for the plaintiff being PWs Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The plaintiff as PW 1 in her evidence stated inter alia, that the defendant/appellant was her husband and their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Marriage Act in August, 1967 and she did not know that her husband was a Christian; that she lived with the defendant / appellant as husband and wife for 7 (seven) years and a child was born out of the wedlock who was living with his father; that she was a maiden at the time of her marriage and she was not told that the defendant / appellant was a married man, but subsequently, came to know of it. Shri Maniklal Chatterjee as PW 2 in his evidence stated inter alia, that he knew that the defendant had married the plaintiff and they lived together as husband and wife for about 7/8 years at 70a, Chetla Road, and during such living, the plaintiff gave birth 3 to a male child; he also denied that the defendant/ appellant was a Christian and he got such information from the defendant/ appellant's family. The defendant No, 1/ appellant as DW 1 in his evidence categorically stated that the added defendant being the respondent No. 2 was his legally married wife and they were Christians by religion and he was also Christian by birth and he was married to the added defendant / respondent No. 2 on 3rd February, 1945 according to Christian rites and customs at St. Johns Church, Calcutta and produced a certificate issued by the authority which was marked as Exhibit A; that he was baptised on or about 15th June, 1919 and a certificate to prove the same was also produced which was marked as Exhibit B. He, however, admitted that he came to know the plaintiff/ respondent for t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
