Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 941
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. MATHUR, S. K. KULSHRESTHA, S. K. KULSHRESTHA
VIDYUDEEP CHHIDAMILAL SUKHAD - Appellant
Versus
SUBHADRABAI CHHIDAMILAL SUKHAD - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL no. 334 Of 1994
Decided On : 11/26/1998
K.N.AGRAWAL, S.AGRAWAL
A child born out of a void marriage is deemed to be legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 5, 16, 17 - SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - LEGITIMACY OF CHILD BORN OUT OF VOID MARRIAGE - EFFECT OF SECOND MARRIAGE ON FIRST MARRIAGE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Smt. Subhadra Bai, filed a suit against the defendants, Smt. Vidya Devi and her son Vidyudeep, claiming to be the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad and seeking a declaration that the succession certificate granted to the defendants was null and void. The plaintiff alleged that the second marriage of the deceased with Smt. Vidya Devi was illegal and void, and that Vidyudeep was not a legitimate son.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first marriage of the deceased with the plaintiff was valid and subsisting, and that the second marriage with Smt. Vidya Devi was illegal and void. The court further held that Vidyudeep was a legitimate son of the deceased, as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides legitimacy to children born out of void marriages.
Issues: 1. Whether the second marriage of the deceased with Smt. Vidya Devi was valid and legal? 2. Whether Vidyudeep was a legitimate son of the deceased? 3. Whether the succession certificate granted to the defendants was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits a person from marrying again if they have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. The court held that since the deceased was already married to the plaintiff, his second marriage with Smt. Vidya Devi was illegal and void. 2. The court relied on Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides that a child born out of a void marriage is deemed to be legitimate. The court held that Vidyudeep was a legitimate son of the deceased, even though the marriage between the deceased and Smt. Vidya Devi was void. 3. The court held that the succession certificate granted to the defendants was null and void, as it was based on the illegal and void second marriage.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, declaring Vidyudeep to be a legitimate successor of the deceased and entitled to share the property with the plaintiff, Smt. Subhadra Bai. The court modified the earlier decree of the trial court and directed the trial court to divide the assets of the deceased in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS is the First appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 8th November, 1994, passed by IVth additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, sagar in Civil Suit No. 7a of 1991.
( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff Smt. Subhadra Bai filed the present suit. igainst the defendant Smt. Vidya Devi, wife of deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad, her son vidyudeep, State of M. P. and the Superintendout of Police, Sagar praying that the succession certificate granted in favour of defendants smt. Vidya Devi and her son Vidyudeep in the civil Suit No. 33 of 1989 judgment dated 22nd january, 1990 may be declared as null and void as the plaintiff is the lawfully wedded wife of deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad and she is entitled to all post retiral benefits, i. e. the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 of widow fund, G. f. F. in the sum of Rs. 50,000. 00, gratuity in the sum of rs. 37,760. 00, leave encashment amount of rs. 5,496. 00, ex-gratia amount in the sum of rs. 14,300-00 and GPF amount of Rs. 12,000. 00 : totalling to Rs. 1,39,556. 00, and other dues mentioned in the Schedule-A. The plaintiff also sought a direction that the State of M. P. and the Superintendent of Police, Sagar may be directed to pay this amount to her
( 3 ) IT may be relevant to mention here that in earlier Civil Suit No. 33 of 1989, judgment dated 22. 1. 1990, defendants Smt. Vidya Devi and Vidyudeep were declared as successors of deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad and a decree was accordingly passed. The case of the plaintiff is that deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad was a law fully married husband of the plaintiff and she was his wedded wife. It is alleged that defendant Smt. Vidya Devi developed illicit relation with her husband and started living with him. It is alleged that Vidyudeep was born out of this illegal marriage and he is not legitimate son of deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad. It is alleged that Smt. Vidya Devi has obtained the succession certificate by misrepresenting that she was the lawfully married wife of Chhidamilal sukhad and Vidyudeep is his legitimate son. The plaintiff has alleged that Srnt. Vidya Devi was not lawfully married to deceased chhidamiia! Sukhad nor Vidyudeep was legitimate son. It is also alleged that she is the lawfully married wife of deceased Chhidarniial sukhad and even if deceased Chhidamilal sukhad had contracted this illegal marriage with smt. Vidya Devi, then also marriage is void ab initio and, therefore, defendants Smt. Vidya devi and Vidyudeep are not entitled to succeed in the property of the deceased chhidamilal Sukhad. The suit was contested by the defendants no. 1 and 2 and they denied the. allegations made in the plaint. It was submitted that defendant Smt. Vidya Devi married deceased chhidamilal in a temple and was living with him since then and Vidyudeep was born out of this wedlock; therefore, he is legitimate son and is entitled to a succession certificate and to all the assets of the deceased Chhidamilal sukhad.
( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, as many as 8 issues were framed by the trial Court. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was lawfully married wife of deceased Chhidarniial Sukhad in May, 1960 according to Hindu rites and accordingly she is legitimate successor of deceased Chhidamilal sukhad. The learned trial Court further held that the marriage of defendant Smt. Vidya Devi with the deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad, said to have been solemnised on 2. 12. 1970 according to Hindu rites is not a valid marriage. It was further held that the defendant smt Vidya Devi was only a mistress of the deceased Chhidamilal Sukhad. Accordingly, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants Smt. Vidya Devi and vidyudeep. (Smt. Vidya Devi has meanwhile expired ).
( 5 ) THE plaintiff, in order to substantiate the allegations, examined herself as P. W. 1 and in support of her contention that she was the lawfull
