Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9900
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA, TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, JJ
M ADHULA KANAKA LATHA – Appellant
Versus
M ADHULA KASI RAO – Respondent
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO: 16 OF 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.RAMA KRISHNA
For the Respondents: Mr.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI
A second marriage is void if the first marriage is still valid at the time of the second marriage, irrespective of mutual agreements or subsequent divorce.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 11 - Second marriage - Validation of second marriage challenged on grounds of the first marriage's subsistence at the time of the second marriage - Court held the appellant's first marriage was indeed subsisting during the second marriage, making the latter void. (Paras 6, 8)
(B) Family Court - Appeal - The appellant contended against the Family Court's declaration of the second marriage as null and void based on the timeline of the divorce from the first husband and mutual agreements, yet failed to substantively counter the established facts. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed an OP seeking annulment of his marriage to the appellant, asserting that her first marriage was valid at the time of their wedding, nullifying their union. The appellant contended that her first marriage had been dissolved before marrying the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court's decision was upheld, confirming the second marriage as null and void based on evidence and timelines detailed.
Issues: The fundamental issue revolved around the validity of the second marriage predicated on the status of the first marriage at the time of the second wedding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellant's first marriage was still valid during her second marriage, deeming the latter void.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of the second marriage based on the first marriage's subsistence is in question. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's reasoning on the first marriage's validity affecting the second. (Para 3 , 9) |
| 3. arguments presented regarding fairness and substantiation of the annulment claim. (Para 7) |
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the order dated 01.11.2007 in O.P.No.441 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
2) The appellant herein is the respondent in the said OP. Seeking to declare the marriage between the parties as null and void, the above said OP was filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act .
3) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.
4) The respondent instituted the O.P., referred to above inter alia stating that earlier he married one Revathi and blessed with two children, but she died on 21.02.1994 in a fire accident. Thereupon, he married the appellant herein on 25.12.1994, lived happily for a period of six (06) months and thereafter the appellant started ill-treating the children out of the 1st marriage, used to lead luxurious life and failed to look after the welfare of the children. Further, the respondent came to know that the 1st marriage of the appellant, which was performed on 07.05.1993 was subsisting as on the date of the respondent’s marriage with her and as such, his marriage with the appellant performed on 25.12.1994 is null and void.
5) The appellant filed her counter in O.P., admitting her first marriage dated 07.05.1993; that the respondent is aware of the same. Further, vide mutual agreement dated 15.11.1994, she got separated from the first husband and obtained mutual divorce from him; that thereafter the marriage with the respondent herein was performed on 25.12.1994. She also stated that on 12.06.1995, the Family Court dissolved the marriage date 07.05.1993. It is also pleaded that the respondent having kept the marriage tie for nearly eight (08) years filed the O.P. contrary to the principles of morality and humanity.
6) Before the Family Court, in support of his case, the respondent got himself examined as PW 1 and on behalf of the appellant, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B8 documents were marked. The learned Family Judge formulated a point as to “Whether there are grounds to declare the marriage between the parties as null and void”, examined the matter with reference to the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Family Judge recorded his conclusions in para 14, which reads as follows:
“14. The evidence on record, therefore, establishes that except Ex.B.2 agreement, there is no document to show that the respondent obtained divorce from her first husband by the date of her marriage with the petitioner. Further there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that customary divorce is valid in the community of the respondent. It is significant to note that there is a sentence in Ex.B2 that both the parties agreed to obtain divorce from a Court of Law later. It may be noted that both the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent on 12.06.1995 as per Ex.B.3, whereas the petitioner and respondent married on 25.12.1994 i.e., about six months prior to obtaining of divorce from the Court of law. Therefore, it is clear that the first marriage between the respondent and her first husband Ramana was duly subsisting by the date of the marriage between the parties to this O.P. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon a ruling of our High Court reported in Loya Padmaja alias Venakteswaramma v. Loya Veera Venkata Govindarajulu (AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 234), in which it was held:
“…that the customary divorce is valid under Sec.29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act and hence second marriage is also valid.”
7) Learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon this Cour
