Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Garima Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Singh And Another – Respondents
First Appeal No.623 of 2022
Decided on : 27-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 494, 495, 496 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9, 11, 13 – Challenged – Matrimonial Case – Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife – Solemnization of a second marriage – Held, Court can ensure that the remedies available under section 11 are not unduly limited, and individuals seeking relief are not unjustly deprived of their rights – Ultimate aim of granting a decree of nullity is to annul a marriage that is found to be invalid from its inception, effectively treating it as if it never existed – Court uphold family court's decision, which grants first wife, respondent in this case, right to file an application under section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act – Application seeks declaration of second marriage as illegal and void – Court affirms validity of impugned ruling, allowing first wife to pursue legal recourse to nullify second marriage on grounds of its illegality – Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The primary legal issue concerns the right of a first wife to file a suit under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to declare a subsequent marriage of her husband as null and void, especially when the second marriage was solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife (!) (!) .
The interpretation of the phrase "against the other party" in Section 11 is crucial. The Court emphasizes that this phrase should be understood in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent, which is to provide a summary remedy to the actual parties involved in the marriage, i.e., the husband and the second wife, and not to third parties such as the first wife (!) (!) .
The legislative purpose behind the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act is to promote social justice, social stability, and efficient resolution of matrimonial disputes. The Acts aim to prevent unnecessary harassment and to provide accessible, speedy remedies for parties directly involved in marriage-related issues (!) (!) .
The interpretation of "either party thereto" should be broad enough to serve the social welfare objectives of the legislation, ensuring that the first wife retains the right to challenge an illegal or void marriage of her husband with another woman, even after the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (!) (!) .
A restrictive or narrow interpretation that limits the scope of Section 11 only to the actual parties to the marriage (the husband and the second wife) would undermine the legislative intent and could deprive the first wife of her statutory rights to seek annulment of an illegal marriage (!) (!) .
The law recognizes a distinction between void and voidable marriages. Void marriages are considered non-existent from the outset and can be challenged by any interested person, including third parties, through civil proceedings. Voidable marriages, however, can only be challenged by the parties involved unless declared null by a court decree (!) (!) (!) .
The purpose of Section 11 is to provide a simplified, accessible remedy for the parties directly affected by the marriage's invalidity, consistent with the social welfare and reform objectives of the legislation. This approach is intended to prevent harassment, promote social harmony, and uphold the rights of the legally wedded spouse (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court affirms that the remedy under Section 11 should be available to the first wife to challenge her husband's subsequent marriage, as this aligns with the legislative purpose of protecting the sanctity of marriage and preventing polygamy, consistent with the overall objectives of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the Court upholds the legal right of the first wife to file a petition under Section 11 to declare the second marriage as illegal and void, emphasizing that the legislative intent and social objectives support a broad interpretation of the relevant provisions to serve justice and social reform (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Diwakar, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant/ appellant and Shri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff/re-spondent no.1.
2. Before we advert to the question of law raised in the instant first appeal by Smt. Garima Singh-the second wife, it would be convenient to have a bird's eye view of the facts of the case.
3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 06.05.2002, Smt. Pratima Singh married Raghvendra Singh in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to certain matrimonial disputes, Raghvendra Singh filed a Matrimonial Case No.24 of 2012 titled as Raghvendra Singh Vs. Smt. Pratima Singh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot, for dissolution of marriage. In the aforesaid matrimonial case, Smt Pratima Singh filed a counterclaim under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rites. The Matrimonial Case No.24 was rejected, and the counterclaim filed by Smt. Pratima Singh was allowed with the direction to Raghvendra Singh to bring Smt. Pratima Singh to his house within one month from the date of order to perform matrimonial obligation.
4. Meanwhile, Smt. Pratima Singh learnt that Raghvendra Singh married Smt. Garima Singh and two children are born out of that wedlock, namely, Akshay Singh and Anaya Pratap Singh. It is also revealed that Shri Raj Narayan Singh-her father-in-law -had registered a will deed on 16.2.2018 in favour of Smt. Garima Singh and her two children and bequeathed all his movable and immovable properties in their names and got recorded her name as the wife of Raghvendra Singh in the family register.
5. That aggrieved by the same, Smt. Pratima Singh-the first wife -filed a Criminal Complaint No.8 of 2019, under Sections 494, 495, 496 I.P.C., before the court of competent jurisdiction at Mau, District Chitrakoot titled as Smt. Pratima Singh Vs. Raghvendra Singh and another, and the same is pending trial.
6. The first wife had also challenged the registered will deed dated 16.2.2018 in Original Suit No.037 of 2019 titled as Pratima Singh Vs. Garima Singh before the learned Civil Judge, Mau. The suit was dismissed ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 12.2.2022.
7. The first wife being aggrieved by the solemnization of a second marriage by her husband with Smt. Garima Singh, during her lifetime, filed a Matrimonial Case No.97 of 2020 before the family court, under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to declare the second marriage as null and void being performed in contravention of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
8. During the pendency of this case, Shri Raghvendra Singh died on 10.1.2021. The second wife was also made respondent in the case, and she took a preliminary objection that the first wife couldn't file a case under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her husband and second wife. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court decided the preliminary objection in favour of the first wife and listed the matter for recording of evidence.
9. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court construed the word “either party thereto” mentioned in section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the light of the surrounding text and declared that the first wife can file a suit of declaration of the second marriage as illegal and void.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the second wife preferred the instant first appeal before this Court with the plea that the first wife could not file a case under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the second wife and her husband.
11. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the second wife - the appellant herein, has placed reliance in the case Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Ramaswami Naicker and another, AIR 1960 Mad 6 ; Amar Lal Goru Vs. Vijayabai, Pusa Singroda, AIR 1959 0 (MP) 400 ; Kedar Nath Gupta Vs. Sm. Suprava, AIR 1963 Pat 311 ; Harmohan Senapati Vs. Smt. Kamla Kumari Senapati and
Second marriage – Illegal and void – Maintainability of application – Section 7 of Act of Family courts Act, 1984 should be interpreted harmoniously in conjunction with phrase “either party thereto” ....
Legal representatives can pursue petitions under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act after the death of a party, particularly when property rights are implicated, and the provisions of Order 22 CPC ....
The Family Court erred in dismissing divorce application based solely on Scheduled Tribe status; potential for adjudication under the Hindu Marriage Act must be determined.
Marriages contravening section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are void ab initio and cannot be validated without judicial declaration.
Void Marriages – Declaration of parties’ marital-status, strikes at the very core of society – Courts are under obligation to render a complete and effective decision with regard to marital status of....
(1) Alimony – A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from other spouse by invoking Section 25....
The Family Courts possess exclusive jurisdiction to declare matrimonial status, rendering suits maintainable even post the husband's death, affirming marriage validity standards under applicable Hind....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the status of the parties and their entitlement to shares in the ancestral property based on the evidence presented and the ap....
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
