Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Hemant Kumar Srivastava and Prabhat Kumar Singh, JJ. rejected a letters patent appeal on the admission stage itself to be allowed to solemnize the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage and found it being having no merits to stand.

In the instant case, the appellant married his second wife during the lifetime of his first wife. When a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, he produced forged documents. Further, he was dismissed from service. Consequently, he challenged it. Later not only his appeal against the dismissal order but also its further revision against it was also dismissed by a Single Judge Bench.

The counsel for the appellant, Arun Kumar pled that the appellant solemnized his second marriage with Sunita Upadhayay (second wife) with the permission and consent of his first wife which the Disciplinary Authority and the Single Judge Bench failed to take into consideration.

The respondent’s counsel, Manoj Kumar Singh contended that the aforesaid authorities had considered all the aspects of the matter. Moreover the appellant was also charged for forgery.

In view of the above, the Court opined that the Single Judge Bench had discussed the case in detail and passed the impugned judgment. It observed that even if the first wife consented to the appellant’s marriage, it gave no right to the appellant to solemnize his second marriage. Moreover, the appellant failed to prove any violation of natural justice or any violation of rules. Further, the said factual aspect could not be looked into this Letters Patent Appeal. In view thereof, the appeal was dismissed.[Binod Kumar Singh v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 2363, dated on 02-12-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts  Act, 1984 challenging the order of Principal Judge whereby the marriage between the parties was declared null void.

The husband filed a petition under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the wife seeking a declaration that the marriage between the parties be declared null and void. The ground taken being that on the date of marriage, the wife already had a living spouse. The petition disclosed that the wife had married one Manoj Kumar; and with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, an agreement to dissolve the marriage was reduced into writing and signed by respective father of the parties. The Principal Judge allowed the petition and the marriage between husband and wife was declared null and void under Section 11. Aggrieved thus, the wife preferred the instant appeal. Counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the first marriage was dissolved as per customs and thus the order impugned was liable to be set aside.

The High Court perused the record. It was noticed that the document so executed, as aforementioned, was a compromise with effect that either of the parties would not interfere in the life of the other in future. The Court was of the view that submission made by the counsel for the wife could not be accepted in light of Section 11 (void marriages) read with Section 5 (conditions for a Hindu marriage). Furthermore, the document so executed did not bear signature of the parties but of their respective father. In view of the express bar under Section 5(i), the Court found no infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. [Meenakshi Sharma v. Ravi Kumar,2018 SCC OnLine Del 10379, dated 09-07-2018]