A subsequent marriage is void if one party is still married at the time of the new marriage, violating the Hindu Marriage Act.

1.By this appeal under S.19(1) of the Family Courts Act , 1984 the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 27-2-2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No. 305 - A / 05 whereby and where under learned Principal Judge Family Court, Durg has declared the marriage between parties null and void under S.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act of 1955').

2. The judgment and decree is impugned on the ground that without any evidence of first marriage of appellant with one Rakesh Kumar Meshram Court below has declared the marriage null and void and thereby committed an illegality.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as per pleading of the parties is, present respondent / plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that present appellant was having illicit relation with one Rakesh Kumar Meshram resident of Abagarh Chouki and 2 abortion took place as a result of illicit relation present respondent married with Rakesh Kumar Meshram and was residing with him as a wife. She had earlier also filed one application under S.9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal right against Rakesh Kumar Meshram and during subsistence of her first marriage with Rakesh Kumar Meshram after showing herself unmarried solemnized marriage with the respondent. The subsequent marriage during subsistence of first marriage is void on the ground of subsequent marriage during subsistence of first marriage of present appellant. Respondent has filed the petition for declaration of marriage null and void under S.11 of the Act of 1955.

4. Present appellant / defendant has specifically denied the allegation and pleaded that appellant was having illicit relation with Rakesh Kumar Meshram and both the persons have initiated judicial proceeding and entered into compromise these facts was informed by the appellant and his family members by respondent and his relatives before his marriage with the present appellant. Appellant has not performed marriage with the respondent during subsistence of her first marriage. At the time of her marriage with the respondent the appellant was unmarried. On the basis of averments of the parties issues were framed and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned Principal Judge Family Court has decreed the suit under S.11 of the Act of 1955 filed by the respondent and declared the marriage null and void.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are heard.

6. Judgment and decree impugned and record of Court below perused.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Parag Kotecha vehemently argued that respondent has not proved the fact of first marriage of the appellant with one Rakesh Kumar Meshram the illicit relation of present appellant with Rakesh Kumar Meshram is not disputed and appellant and her relative has already intimated these facts to respondent and his relatives before solemnization of the marriage between the parties. The marriage between parties was not in violation of Clause (1) of S.5 of the Act of 1955. The judgment and decree impugned is not sustainable under the law.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that documents filed on behalf of the parties are sufficient for drawing the inference that present appellant had earlier married with one Rakesh Kumar Meshram and during subsistence of her marriage with Rakesh Kumar Meshram she had married with the present respondent same may in violation of Clause 1 of S.5 of the Act of 1955 and the marriage between the parties is null and void.

9. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, we have examined