Back
Allahbad High Court
A.BANERJI
Jamboo Parasad Jain - Appellant
Versus
Malti Prabha - Respondent
Decided On : 01/24/1979
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - S.12, 13, 15 - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE - REMARRIAGE - EFFECT - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF S.15 - APPLICABILITY TO DECREE OF NULLITY - OBSERVATIONS OF SUPREME COURT IN CHANDRA MOHINI V. AVINASH PRASAD (AIR 1967 SC 581) - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DECREE OF DIVORCE AND DECREE OF NULLITY - CONSEQUENCES OF ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE - EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a petition under Ss.12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, read with the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was null and void or a decree for divorce be granted to the petitioner against the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the marriage of the parties was solemnised at Rohtak on 25-4-1970 and the parties were Jain Hindus. It was alleged that the mother and the father of the respondent were in active collusion with the respondent and defrauded the petitioner. At the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness which comes within the purview of lunacy, with lucid intervals. It was also stated that schizophrenia is a mental illness which cannot be cured. The respondent was of unsound mind at the time of her marriage and from before. In the alternative it was stated that if the petitioner was not able to prove the unsoundness of the mind of the respondent, the latter was extremely cruel to the petitioner during the time they stayed together. The facts in support thereof were stated to ask for an alternative relief of divorce.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only in the case of a dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and not in the case of an annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act. 2. The observations of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohini v. Avinash Prasad (AIR 1967 SC 581) are not applicable to a case of annulment of marriage. 3. A decree of annulment of marriage declares the marriage to be null and void ab initio, rendering it non-existent in the eyes of the law. 4. There is no impediment for a party to contract a fresh marriage after a decree of annulment of marriage has been passed. 5. A subsequent marriage contracted after a decree of annulment of marriage is not void.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applies to a decree of annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act? 2. Whether the observations of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohini v. Avinash Prasad (AIR 1967 SC 581) are applicable to a case of annulment of marriage? 3. What are the consequences of an annulment of marriage? 4. Whether there is any impediment for a party to contract a fresh marriage after a decree of annulment of marriage has been passed? 5. Whether a subsequent marriage contracted after a decree of annulment of marriage is void?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically applies to cases of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and does not extend to decrees of annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act. 2. The observations of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohini v. Avinash Prasad (AIR 1967 SC 581) were made in the context of a decree of divorce and cannot be extended to cases of annulment of marriage. 3. A decree of annulment of marriage declares the marriage to be null and void from the beginning, rendering it non-existent in the eyes of the law. 4. There is no legal impediment for a party to contract a fresh marriage after a decree of annulment of marriage has been passed. 5. A subsequent marriage contracted after a decree of annulment of marriage is not void.
Final Decision: Both Civil Revisions are allowed. The orders dated 14-2-1975 and 9-12-1976 are set aside. The application of the applicant declaring the appeal to have been rendered infructuous is upheld. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
2. Shri Jamboo Prasad Jain, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner filed a petition under Ss.12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was null and void or a decree for divorce be granted to the petitioner against the respondent. He alleged in the petition that the marriage of the parties was solemnised at Rohtak on 25-4-1970 and the parties were Jain Hindus. It was alleged that the mother and the father of the respondent were in, active collusion with the respondent and defrauded the petitioner. At the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness which comes within the purview of lunacy, with lucid intervals. It was also stated that schizophrenia is a mental illness which cannot be cured. The respondent was of unsound mind at the time of her marriage and from before. In the alternative it was stated that if the petitioner was not able to prove the unsoundness of the mind of the respondent, the latter was extremely cruel to the petitioner during the time they stayed together. The facts in support thereof were stated to ask for an alternative relief of divorce. A written statement was filed by the wife on 7-4-1971. Issues were framed on the following day. Issue No. 1 was in regard to the question as to whether the respondent was mentally unfit and deficient as alleged by the petitioner on the date of marriage or before and whether the marriage was null and void under S.12 of the Act. Issue No. 4 was whether the petition was cognisable in the Court of the Civil Judge. This issue was decided by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 19th April, 1971 and it was held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner examined his witness. Thereafter date was fixed for recording of the evidence of the respondent. Thereafter the respondent sought the amendment of the written statement by saying that inconsistent pleas in the petition under Ss.12 and 13 of the Act could not be permitted. This plea was rejected. A revision was filed and the revision was dismissed. On the 25th Sept. 1971 the Court rejected an other application of the respondent praying that the petitioner be directed to inform the Court about the exact case and to elect one of the alternative cases in the petition. This application was rejected. Time was obtained on several occasions and ultimately an appeal was filed by the respondent before the District Judge. After the disposal of the appeal the file was received on 20-1-1972 and the Court ordered the case to be put up for fixing a date in the case. 16th Feb. 1972 was fixed for evidence and arguments. The respondent was absent. The Court treated the proceedings as one under Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. and the very same day passed a judgement allowing the petition. The suit was decreed against the respondent and it was declared that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent Smt. Malti Prabha held on 25th April, 1970 was null and void. Smt. Malti Prabha, filed the Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1972 against the decree dated Feb. 16, 1972 before the District Judge on 24-4-1972. This appeal is still pending. The petitioner moved an application dated 4-1-1975 stating that after his marriage with the respondent had been declared null and void, he had contracted marriage with one pratibha Jain on 19th Feb. 1972 and there were two issues born from this wedlock. He prayed that the appeal be declared to have become infructuous. This application was, however, rejected on 14th Feb. 1975. The present revision No. 754 of 1975 has been filed by the husband against the above order. In this revision it has been contended on b
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
