Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, JJ.
Ketan Rastogi And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 1314 of 2024
Decided On : 24-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Lav Singh, Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Shyam Narain Mishra
For the Respondent: G.A., Manish Soni, Mohit Kumar Rawat, Saurabh Kr Shahi

Marriages contravening section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are void ab initio and cannot be validated without judicial declaration.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 11 - Application for Recall - The applicant sought to recall an order allowing a writ petition based on mutual compromise between litigating parties. The Court declined to interfere with the prior order, highlighting that subsequent developments do not merit such recall, thus acknowledging the binding effect of compromise on ongoing disputes. (Paras 3, 4, 19)

(B) Void Marriages - The Court reiterated that marriages conducted in contravention of conditions stipulated in Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act are void ab initio, affirming that no rights arise from such unions except those expressly recognized by the Act. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) The Court emphasized the authority to determine marital status lies with the courts, and procedural compliance is mandatory for declaring nullity of marriages. (Paras 13, 15)

Findings of Court:
The Application for Recall was rejected as the Court found no grounds justifying the overturning of its earlier ruling based on subsequent events.

Issues: Whether subsequent developments are sufficient to warrant recall of a previous order, and the recognition of void marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The prior ruling was based on a lawful compromise between parties, and subsequent judicial actions do not diminish the validity of earlier agreements.

Result: Application for recall is rejected.

Table of Content
1. recall of prior order based on settlement (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. factual background of marriage and conflicts (Para 7 , 10 , 11)
3. legal principles on void marriages under hindu marriage act (Para 8 , 12 , 13)
4. judicial declaration of marital status is essential (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. rejection of recall application and guidance for further action (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

(Civil Misc. Application No. IA/5/2025-Application for Recall of order dated 09.01.2025)

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Saurabh Kumar Shahi & Shri Mohit Kumar Rawat, Advocates on behalf of writ petitioners is taken on record.

2. Heard, Shri Manish Soni, learned counsel for applicant/opposite party no. 4 in the writ petition, Shri Saurabh Kumar Shahi and Shri Mohit Kumar Rawat learned counsels for the petitioners.

3. By means of the instant application, Smt. Mohini Verma the applicant / opposite party no. 4, has prayed for the Recall of the Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, J. and Hon'ble Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, J. and for the restoration of the case to its original number and to be heard and decided on merits afresh.

4. Record of the writ petition as available before us shows that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 09.01.2025 decided the writ petition on the basis of a mutual agreement arrived between the litigating parties and allowed the same. The writ petitioner and the applicant herein / opposite party no.4 amicably settled their disputes in the presence of their parents and entered a compromise by executing a compromise deed dated 17.02.2024. The same is on record.

5. The contents of the aforesaid compromise dated 17.02.2024 are reproduced herein below for ready reference:

6. The aforesaid compromise dated 17.02.2024 was duly verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court on 13.12.2024 under the orders of this Court dated 23.02.2024 thereafter the Writ Petition was allowed vide Order dated 09.01.2025 pursuant to the said compromise. The extract of the Order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court is reproduced here-in-below: -

"Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the supplementary affidavit filed today, the petitioners have specifically stated that the Suit No. 225 of 2022, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed before the family court was dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.08.2024. The plaintiff has not filed any recall application to get the said order dated 09.08.2024 recalled nor the same would be recalled.

Learned counsel for the parties also state that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and submitted their deed of compromise which is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The report of the Senior Registrar of this Court dated 13.12.2024 is on record, according to which he has verified the compromise on 13.12.2024.

According to the terms of the compromise, parties have decided to withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other including First Information Report dated 09.04.2021 bearing Case Crime No.0216 of 2021, under Sections 323,504,506,392,354 I.P.C., Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

Intent is clear, the informant - Smt. Mohini Verma, who is a signatory to the compromise, does not want to press the FIR, therefore, no purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings even if charge sheet has been filed before the court below to go on considering the nature of the dispute.

Accordingly, the impugned FIR, which is the basis to serve consequential proceedings of investigation and thereafter filing of charge sheet, if any, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all proceedings taken consequent to the lodging of the FIR including charge sheet, if any, filed before the court below stand quashed.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

The Senior Registrar of this Court sha