Karnataka HC Rejects Woman’s Claim To Half Of BBMP Retiree’s Benefits, Says Alleged Second Marriage Was Void While First Marriage Subsisted

The plaintiff claimed to be the second wife of late Lingaiah, a retired BBMP employee, and sought a declaration that she was entitled to half of his death-cum-retirement benefits.

She alleged that Lingaiah and his first wife, defendant No. 3, lived separately following an order of judicial separation, and that she and Lingaiah lived together for more than 20 years.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not established the legal status necessary to claim the benefits.

She appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The High Court noted that the parties were governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that defendant No. 3 was Lingaiah’s first wife.

Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, requires that neither party to a marriage have a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

Under Section 11, a marriage solemnised in contravention of the applicable condition in Section 5 is void.

The Court also stated that the trial court had relied on Supreme Court judgments, but the judgment under appeal does not identify those authorities.

The Court accepted that defendant No. 3 was Lingaiah’s first wife and concluded that the plaintiff’s alleged marriage took place while that first marriage subsisted.

The alleged separation, including the asserted order of judicial separation, did not establish that the first marriage had ceased to subsist.

Applying Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court held that the alleged second marriage had no legal status and could not support the plaintiff’s claim to a half share in the benefits.

It found no error or illegality in the trial court’s dismissal of the suit.

Finding no basis to interfere with the trial court’s decision, it dismissed the appeal.