K MEENAKUMARI vs SRI M ALLAH BAKASH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 107250 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
K. MEENAKUMARI W/O. MOHAMMED RAFIQ
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. PLOT NO.09, SRI RANGA NIVAS,
VIDYAGIRI COLONY, BALLARI CLUB BACK SIDE,
BALLARI-583101.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHINMAY G. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M. ALLAH BAKASH /O. LATE UMMARL ALI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: CLOTH BUSINESS,
R/O. W. NO. 28, BEHIND SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE,
GOLD SMITH COLONY, COWL BAZAAR,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
2. SMT. FIZA BEGUM, W/O. LATE MOHAMMED RAFIQ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
3. MEHAK NAAZ D/O. LATE MOHAMMED RAFIQ,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
4. MOSHIQIDA BEGUM D/O LATE MOHAMMED RAFIQ,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
5. MOHAMMED RAYAN NAWAAZ
S/O. LATE MOHAMMEDRAFIQ,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS A MINOR
BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO. 2
RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE R/O. D. NO. 51/13,
MILLERPET, TQ. AND DISTRICTBALLARI -583101.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
6. SMT. RAHAMATUNISSA BEGUM
W/O. LATE M. BABJI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. W. NO. 13, COURT MOHALLA,
MILLERPET, BALLARI,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
7. M.KHAJA S/O. LATE M. BABJI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. W. NO. 13, COURT MOHALLA,
MILLERPET, BALLARI,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
8. SMT. SHAKILA BEGUM W/O. ASMATH BASHA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. GADANG STREET, NEAR KEB OFFICE,
RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAAR,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
9. SMT. RUKSANA BEGUM W/O. SHASHAVALI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
ST
R/O. KORAMANGALA, 1 BLOCK, MAIN ROAD,
JAKASANDRAEXTENSION AREA/39,
ND
2 FLOOR, BANGALORE-562112.
10. SMT. ROSHANARA BEGUM W/O. ANSAR BASHA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. SIDDLAGATTA PORT, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-562105.
C/O. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,
SIDDLAGATTA PORT, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-562105.
11. SMT. M. NOOR JAHAN W/O. MEHEBOOB,
D/O. LATE SYED BAJI, G/D. LATE M. UMAR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O. NEW POLICE QUARTERS,
SADASHIVA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA-583121.
12. SMT. M. FAIROZA BEGUM,
D/O. LATE SYED BAJI, G/D. LATE M. UMAR ALI,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. NEW POLICE QUARTERS,
SADASHIVA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA-583121.
SRI. M. MASSTHANVALI DIED BY LR’S.,
13. SMT. TAHERA BEGUM W/O. LATE MASTHAN VALI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
14. M. FATHIMA BEGUM D/O. LATE M. MASTHAN VALI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
15. SRI MOHAMMED ATHAR S/O. M. MASTHANVALI,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
16. MAIMUNISSA BEGUM D/O. LATE MASTHAN VALI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
17. SRI MAZHAR S/O. LATE MASTHAN VALI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
18. M. GHOUSIAMUBARAK D/O. LATE M. MATHAN VALI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 13 TO 18 ARE
R/O.D. NO. 51, W. NO.15,
ST
1 CROSS, COURT MOHALLA,
MILLERPET, BALLARI-583121.
19. SMT. RAZIA BEGUM D/O. LATE M. UMAR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O. BEHIND RAMA TALKIES,
NEAR NOORANI MASJID, HOSPET-583201,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
20. SMT. RASOOL BEGUM W/O. SYED HUSSAIN,
D/O. LATE UMAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
TH
R/O. D. NO. 25, 5 CROSS,
ANEPALLAYA, ADUGUDIPOST,
BANGALORE- 560030.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRANAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI P. VADIRAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5,
NOTICE TO R6,R7,R13,R14,R16 TO R18 ARE SERVED,
NOTICE TO R8, R15 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO. 50 IN O.S. NO. 246/2012 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI DATED
18.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW I.A. NO. 50 IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO
THE PETITIONER. VIDE ANNEXURE-B1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The Captioned petition is filed calling in question the
order dated 18.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.50 in O.S.
No.246/2012, whereby the Trial Court has partly allowed the
application by permitting only proposed defendant No.2(f),
namely the daughter of deceased defendant No.2, to come on
record while rejecting the prayer insofar as the petitioner is
concerned.
2. The facts leading to the present petition are that
O.S. No.246/2012 is a suit instituted by the brother of
defendant No.2 seeking partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit,
defendant No.2 died on 14.03.2024.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
3. The petitioner claims that she is the wife of deceased
defendant No.2 and that proposed defendant No.2(f) is the
daughter born through their wedlock. According to the
petitioner, her marriage with deceased defendant No.2 was
solemnized on 24.04.2008 under the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’).
4. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that upon
the death of defendant No.2, she was neither informed about
the pendency of the proceedings nor was she brought on record
as one of the legal representatives. Instead, defendant
Nos.2(a) to 2(d), claiming to be the legal representatives of the
deceased, were impleaded.
5. On coming to know of the pendency of the
proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A. Nos.49 and 50 seeking to
implead herself and her daughter as the legal representatives
of deceased defendant No.2. The said applications were initially
allowed by order dated 11.09.2024.
6. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court
in W.P. No.105700/2024. This Court set aside the order and
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to hold
an enquiry regarding the status of the applicants before
deciding the impleading applications.
7. Pursuant to the remand, the Trial Court conducted
an enquiry and, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion
that the marriage of the petitioner with deceased defendant
No.2 was void ab initio as the first marriage of defendant No.2
with defendant No.2(a) was subsisting on the date of the
alleged marriage. Consequently, the Trial Court rejected the
application insofar as the petitioner was concerned but
permitted the daughter born from the said relationship to be
brought on record.
8. Aggrieved by the rejection of her impleading
application, the present writ petition is filed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner had contracted marriage with
deceased defendant No.2 under the Act and, therefore, she is
entitled to represent his estate and contest the proceedings. It
is argued that the Trial Court has erroneously adjudicated upon
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
the validity of the marriage at the stage of impleadment and
has illegally denied her an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents supported the impugned order and
contended that the petitioner herself admits that she is the
second wife of deceased defendant No.2. Since the first
marriage admittedly subsisted, the alleged marriage performed
under the Act is void in view of Section 4 of the Act. It is
therefore submitted that no legal status as wife accrues to the
petitioner and consequently she cannot claim to be a legal
representative entitled to prosecute or defend the proceedings.
11. The only question that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the Trial Court committed any jurisdictional
error in rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking
impleadment as the legal representative of deceased
defendant No.2 while permitting the daughter born from
the said relationship to be brought on record?”
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
Findings on point for consideration:
12. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is
necessary to examine Section 4(a) of the Act, which reads
thus:
“Section 4. Conditions relating to solemnization
of special marriages.—Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force
relating to the solemnization of marriages, a
marriage between any two persons may be
solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the
marriage the following conditions are fulfilled,
namely:
(a) neither party has a spouse living;”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The statutory mandate is clear and unambiguous.
One of the essential conditions for a valid marriage under the
Act is that neither party should have a spouse living on the
date of the marriage. The requirement is mandatory and admits
of no exception.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
14. In the present case, the petitioner herself has
produced an affidavit in support of the impleading application.
A relevant portion of the affidavit reads thus:
“2. I further submit that the Plaintiff has not made
us the parties to the suit, as we being the wife and
daughter of deceased Defendant No.2 Late. Mohammed
Rafiq, my husband died on 14.03.2024, I was married to
my husband on 24.04.2008 at Belagum under Special
Marriage Act bearing Special Marriage No.6/2008-09 in
this connection the certificate of marriage has been
issued by the concerned departments, I further submit
that I have enclosed the Birth Certificate of my
daughter, Aadhar Cards for your kind perusal, I being
nd
the 2 wife of the deceased Defendant No.2, the first
wife by name Fiza Begum has managed the City
Corporation, Ballari, not to enter my name in the column
of wife in the Death Certificate of my husband.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. The above averment is a clear and unequivocal
admission by the petitioner that she is the second wife of
deceased defendant No.2. The affidavit further acknowledges
the existence of the first wife, namely defendant No.2(a). Thus,
the subsistence of the first marriage is not merely established
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
through the evidence adduced before the Trial Court but is also
admitted by the petitioner herself.
16. Once these foundational facts stand admitted, the
inevitable consequence is that the alleged marriage dated
24.04.2008, though stated to have been solemnized under the
Act, was in direct violation of Section 4(a) of the Act.
17. The legal consequence of such violation is no longer
res integra . A marriage performed under the Act during the
subsistence of an earlier marriage is void and does not confer
the legal status of husband and wife upon the parties. The
Jharkhand High Court in MD Akhil Alam v. Tumpa
Chakravarti, AIR 2026 JAR 12, while considering an identical
issue, observed as follows:
“The applicant cannot take refuge behind the
fallacious contention that he had contracted the
second marriage with a Muslim woman by virtue of
the exceptions enshrined in Mohammedan Law.
Mohammedan Law does not claim precedence over
Special Marriage Act, 1954 keeping in view that the
applicant solemnized his first marriage under
Mohammedan law and he contracted his second
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
marriage under Special Marriage Act. There being no
saving clause for the applicant to purge him of the
charges under Section 494, I.P.C., I feel that the
applicant is liable to be punished under Section 494,
I.P.C.”
18. The above principle squarely applies to the facts of
the present case. Once parties voluntarily choose to solemnize
their marriage under the Act, they are governed by the
mandatory conditions prescribed therein. The statutory
requirement that neither party should have a spouse living
cannot be diluted by resorting to personal law or any equitable
considerations.
19. Therefore the mere fact that deceased defendant
No.2 professed the Mohammedan faith does not, by itself, alter
the legal position obtaining under the Act. It is true that
Mohammedan personal law, subject to the conditions and
limitations recognised therein, permits a Muslim male to
contract more than one marriage. Such permissibility, however,
operates only within the domain of personal law governing
marriages solemnized thereunder. The legal position undergoes
a fundamental change when a party voluntarily elects to
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
solemnize a marriage under the provisions of the Act. The Act
is a secular and self-contained code governing the conditions,
solemnization and consequences of marriages contracted under
its provisions. Once parties consciously invoke the provisions of
the Act instead of their personal law, they subject themselves
to the mandatory statutory regime enacted by Parliament. The
rights and obligations flowing from such marriage are therefore
determined not by personal law but exclusively by the
provisions of the Act.
20. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the foundational
conditions for a valid marriage, one of which unequivocally
mandates that neither party should have a spouse living at the
time of the marriage. This requirement is neither directory nor
procedural; it constitutes the very foundation of the statutory
validity of a marriage under the Act. Any marriage solemnized
in derogation of this mandatory condition is rendered void ab
initio, not because the personal law prohibits it, but because
the parties have voluntarily elected to be governed by a
statutory code which insists upon monogamy as an
indispensable pre-condition for a valid marriage. To hold
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
otherwise would permit parties to selectively invoke the
benefits of a special statute while simultaneously claiming
exemptions founded upon personal law, a course wholly
inconsistent with the scheme, object and legislative intent
underlying the Act. Acceptance of such a contention would
defeat the uniform statutory discipline contemplated by the Act
and render the mandatory conditions contained in Section 4
otiose. Therefore, where a marriage is admittedly solemnized
under the Act during the subsistence of an earlier valid
marriage, its validity has necessarily to be tested exclusively on
the touchstone of the provisions of the Act, and if the statutory
conditions are found to be violated, the marriage is void from
its inception and does not confer the legal status of husband or
wife upon the parties thereto.
21. The Trial Court, while conducting the enquiry as
directed by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, has
meticulously examined the pleadings, documentary evidence
and admissions made by the petitioner. Upon appreciation of
the material on record, the Trial Court has arrived at the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
conclusion that the petitioner cannot claim the status of a
legally wedded wife.
22. This Court finds no perversity or jurisdictional error
in the said finding. On the contrary, the conclusion reached by
the Trial Court is fully supported by the petitioner’s own
admission and the statutory provisions governing the field.
Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to contend that
irrespective of the validity of the marriage, the petitioner ought
to have been impleaded so as to contest the proceedings. This
submission cannot be accepted. A person seeking impleadment
as the legal representative of a deceased litigant must
demonstrate a legally recognisable right to represent the
estate. In the absence of a valid marital status, the petitioner
cannot claim the status of widow of deceased defendant No.2.
Consequently, she cannot insist upon being brought on record
merely on the basis of an admittedly void marriage.
23. The Trial Court has, however, rightly distinguished
the status of the petitioner from that of the child born from the
said relationship. Children born from a void marriage are
entitled to statutory protection and are competent to represent
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
their legal rights in appropriate proceedings. Bearing this
settled legal position in mind, the Trial Court has permitted
proposed defendant No.2(f), namely the daughter, to come on
record.
24. The said exercise of discretion is both judicious and
in consonance with the settled principles governing succession
and representation of estates.
25. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution, does not sit as a Court of
appeal over findings recorded by the Trial Court. Unless the
findings suffer from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or
manifest illegality, interference is unwarranted.
26. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has considered
the entire factual matrix in its proper perspective. The
conclusion that the petitioner, admittedly being the second wife
whose marriage under the Act was void for non-compliance
with Section 4(a), is neither a necessary party nor a proper
party to the suit cannot be faulted. This Court is therefore of
the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:9731
WP No. 107250 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020205042025
from any infirmity warranting interference under Articles 226 or
227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the point for
consideration is answered in the ‘ negative’ .
27. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed .
(ii) The order dated 18.08.2025 passed on I.A. No.50
in O.S. No.246/2012 is affirmed.
(iii) It is made clear that the impleadment of proposed
defendant No.2(f), as ordered by the Trial Court,
shall remain undisturbed and the Trial Court shall
proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
(iv) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB/CT:GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138