A spouse who is not a party to a bigamous marriage has the right to file a suit for a declaration of nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 1 ) THIS second civil appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-9-1982 passed by Sri Harish Chandra, District Judge, Bahraich, dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1982, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1982 passed by Sri Jagdish, Civil Judge, Bahraich in Regular Suit No. 99 of 1980.

( 2 ) SMT. Kamla Devi, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit bearing No. 99 of 1980, against her husband Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and Smt. Roop Rani with whom Sri Birendra Bikram Singh married later on and two others praying that the decree in the nature of declaration be passed against Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and Smt. Roop Rani appellants Nos. 1 and 2, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit to the effect that Smt. Roop Rani is not the legally wedded wife of Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and in alternative if their marriage stood proved then that marriage be declared null and void. It was also prayed that the appellant No. 2 Birendra Bikram Singh be directed to pay Smt. Kamla Devi A maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300. 00 per month. A prayer was also made that Sri Birendra Bikram Singh appellant No. 1 be directed to return the ornaments which were mentioned in the list to the respondent Smt. Kamla Devi.

( 3 ) SMT. Kamla Devi has averred in the suit that her marriage with defendant-appellant No. 1 was solemnised about 11 years prior in accordance with Hindu Rites. After the said marriage the plaintiff lived with appellant-defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was not educated while defendant No. 1 was a graduate and was working as a teacher in the City Montessori School at Lucknow. After some time his attitude towards the plaintiff underwent a change and he began to ill-treat her by giving out that she was illiterate and was not worthy to live with him in Lucknow and he also expressed a desire to enter into the marriage with another lady and perpetuated both mental and physically cruelties against the plaintiff. His parents also turned against her and they started torturing her. In the month of Vaisakh, 1977 she was allowed to participate into the marriage of her brother without taking her ornaments. Since, the year 1977 she has been living with her father and during the period neither the appellant defendant No. 1 did take any care nor paid her maintenance while she was residing with her father. The appellant defendant No. 1 married with Smt. Roop Rani appellant defendant No. 2, in spite of the fact that she had filed the suit for injunction, restraining them from entering into the marriage. The plaintiff contended that the marriage of appellant defendant No. 1 with appellant- defendant No. 2 was illegal. The appellant-defendant No. 1 has 25 acres of agriculture land and his monthly income is about Rs. 1200. 00 Hence the plaintiff was entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300. 00 per month.

( 4 ) THE defendants, have filed a joint written statement. Their contention was that the marriage between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 had taken place in the year 1966, but the parents of the defendant No. 2 had not sent her to live with defendant No. 1 at that time, because she was suffering from some mental disease. The father of the defendant No. 1 then married him to the plaintiff. She came to his house after the marriage, but went back in the year 1969. She did not return till 1972. She came in the year 1974 and began to reside with him though she went to visit her fathers place on several occasions. In April, 1974 the plaintiff quietly left their house at night. The plaintiff had refused to live with him. The father of the defendant No. 2 assured the father of the defendant No. 1 in 1976 that his daughter has fully recovered. Thus, he brought the defendant No. 2 to his house in the year 1977 and since then they have been residing together. The plaintiff had the knowledge of his first marriage. She has declined to reside with him. As such she is not entitled to claim any maintenanc