A subsequent Hindu marriage is void when the earlier marriage remains subsisting and customary divorce is unproved.

The parties solemnized a marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir, Bilaspur, on 3 November 2015.

The respondent-husband instituted proceedings under Sections 11 and 12(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void on the ground that the appellant-wife had an earlier subsisting marriage with Sonu Manikpuri.

He relied, inter alia, on prior proceedings instituted by the appellant against Satish Das Manikpuri under Section 125 CrPC, Section 9 HMA and Section 498-A IPC, as well as the orders and documents produced in those proceedings.

The appellant denied having been previously married and alleged cruelty, assault and abandonment by the respondent.

The Family Court held that the subsequent marriage contravened Section 5(i) HMA and declared it void under Section 11 HMA.

The appellant challenged that decree in the present appeal.

Whether the appellant’s marriage with Sonu Manikpuri was subsisting on 3 November 2015, or had been validly dissolved before her marriage with the respondent.

Whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, solemnized on 3 November 2015, contravened Section 5(i) HMA and was liable to be declared null and void under Section 11 HMA.

Section 5(i) HMA prohibits solemnization of a Hindu marriage where either party has a spouse living at the time of marriage; a marriage violating this condition is void ab initio under Section 11 HMA and attracts the statutory consequences contemplated by Section 17 HMA.

The party seeking nullity on the ground of a subsisting earlier marriage must establish both the fact and legal validity of the earlier marriage, and mere cohabitation or description as spouses is insufficient.

A plea that the earlier marriage was dissolved by custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence establishing both the custom and its application to the parties.

The Court also relied on A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P., (2011) 7 SCC 616, regarding the legal significance of a declaration under Section 11 HMA.

Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, MANU/SC/0193/2025, affirming that a marriage entered into while a previous marriage is subsisting is void ab initio.

The Court held that the respondent discharged the initial burden by producing the orders dated 30 June 2010 and 16 December 2011, along with documents from the appellant’s earlier proceedings, which showed that she had represented herself as having been married to Sonu Manikpuri and that the earlier marriage had allegedly been dissolved by customary divorce.

The appellant neither specifically pleaded a recognized custom of divorce nor adduced evidence proving the existence of such custom or the actual dissolution of her marriage in accordance with it.

The earlier Family Court proceedings had also found that her marriage with Sonu had not been legally dissolved, and those orders had attained finality.

Accordingly, the Court treated the earlier marriage as subsisting on 3 November 2015.

Since the appellant therefore had a living spouse when she married the respondent, the subsequent marriage violated Section 5(i) HMA and fell within Section 11.

The marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent on 3 November 2015 was consequently held to be null and void under Section 11 HMA.

The appeal was dismissed, the Family Court’s judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 93-A/2019 were affirmed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.