TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Moushumi Bhattacharya and
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ.
Mudireddydivya – Appellant
versus
Sulktisivarama Reddy – Respondent
Family Court Appeal No.19 of 2025
Decided on 26.3.2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Petition for decree of nullity of marriage – very effort should be made to iron creases out in two conflicting enactments and more liberal enactment should be adopted for resolving conflict – Both Hindu Marriage Act, 1955and Family Courts Act, 1984are special statutes designed to ensure efficient resolution of conflicts within family without subjecting the parties to further procedural hiccups.
(2) Customary divorce in community is contrary to general law of divorce – Exception would require specific pleadings and corroboration by way of evidence – Onus of establishing fact of customary divorce rests on the person propounding such a custom.
(3) Adultery – Impleadment of third party against who adulterous relations are imputed would be in consonance with principles of natural justice to safeguard character and reputation ramifications of person alleged to have adulterous relations – But this not mandatory.
(4) Alimony to wife – There is no embargo to grant of maintenance to second wife.

Headnote:

(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 12 read with Section 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984 – Petition for decree of nullity of marriage – Suppression of factum of first marriage by respondent-husband – Every effort should be made to iron creases out in two conflicting enactments and more liberal enactment should be adopted for resolving conflict – Both 1955 Act and 1984 Act are special statutes designed to ensure efficient resolution of conflicts within family without subjecting the parties to further procedural hiccups – Respondent did not lead any evidence of customary divorce between respondent and his first wife – Respondent declined to lead evidence to prove customary divorce from his first wife or otherwise – No evidence can be led beyond pleadings – Trial Court should have framed an issue and examined it in light of evidence led by respondent to prove customary divorce pleaded to satisfaction of Court. (Paras 22, 28, 29 and 30)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 12 and 29(2) – Petition for decree of nullity of marriage – Suppression of factum of first marriage by respondent-husband – Customary divorce in community is contrary to general law of divorce – Exception would require specific pleadings and corroboration by way of evidence – Onus of establishing fact of customary divorce rests on the person propounding such a custom – Respondent did not lead any evidence for proving alleged divorce by custom between respondent and his first wife or that there was any compliance on part of respondent and his first wife with the manner or formalities peculiar to custom for dissolution of marriage – Respondent’s alleged customary divorce with his first wife remained un-proved and unsubstantiated – Presence of respondent’s first wife as a co-respondent to the lis is not necessary since this is not a case where respondent’s first wife would be required to be heard for preserving principles of natural justice – This is also not a case where adjudication would entail questions regarding her character, integrity or reputation – Respondent knowingly cohabited with appellant as her spouse on appellant’s mistaken belief that respondent had divorced his first wife – Respondent committed rape on appellant under false pretext of being lawfully-wedded to appellant – Respondent is not inclined to contest appeal as he has not shown any inclination or interest in his claim as spouse of appellant – Trial Court decided to weigh odds heavily against appellant without any legal or factual justification – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 37, 38, 39, 51, 54, 57, 62, 70 & 71)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 12 and 13 – Rules To Regulate Proceedings Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Rules 8(1) and (3) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 3 and Order I Rule 10 – Adultery – Evidence of adultery is required to be led before Court to establish truth of accusation – Court would be called upon to decide the basis of allegation of adultery against respondent and third party – Impleadment of third party against who adulterous relations are imputed would be in consonance with principles of natural justice to safeguard character and reputation ramifications of person alleged to have adulterous relations – Though Rule 8(1) mandates presence of a co-respondent, it does not make such requirement mandatory for a petition to be maintained under Section 13 on the ground of adultery – Issue as to whether marriage is void is essentially a question of law rather than a question of fact – Presence or absence of a co-respondentcannot be fatal to outcome of case. (Paras 44, 45 and 46)

(D) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 25, 11 and 29(2) – Grant of alimony to wife – There is no embargo to grant of maintenance to second wife – Spouse whose marriage has been declared void under section 11 of 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from other spouse under Section 25 of the Act. (Paras 53 and 66)

Result: Family Court Appeal allowed.