Section 11 nullity requires proof of the alleged prior valid marriage.

The appellant-husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 3053 of 2014 under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a declaration that his marriage with the respondent, solemnised on 14 June 2010, was null and void.

He alleged that he had previously married Revathy in 2005 and had children through her, and that he was compelled by his brother to marry the respondent despite the earlier marriage.

The respondent denied the allegations and asserted that her marriage with the appellant was solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs, followed by cohabitation and the birth of a daughter.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant had failed to establish his case.

Whether the appellant proved that his alleged prior marriage with Revathy was valid and lawful, so as to render his subsequent marriage with the respondent void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the appellant was entitled to a declaration that his marriage with the respondent, solemnised on 14 June 2010, was null and void?

The Court applied Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which a marriage is void if it contravenes the conditions prescribed in Section 5, including the prohibition against a subsisting prior marriage.

The party seeking such a declaration bears the burden of proving the existence, validity, and prior solemnisation of the alleged earlier marriage.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that documentary material must reliably establish the fact in issue and that unsupported or ambiguous documents are insufficient to prove a valid marriage.

The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove the alleged prior marriage with Revathy. He did not state the date of that marriage in his pleadings, although he specifically pleaded the date of his marriage with the respondent.

The family card did not describe the relationship between the appellant, Revathy, and the child, while the child’s birth certificate contained deficiencies regarding the parents’ address and did not establish the solemnisation of a marriage.

The Court further noted that the appellant had not examined Revathy, the most material witness; the marriage invitation and photographs were produced only after the original petition had been returned for compliance, creating doubt about their genuineness.

The appellant’s own evidence also indicated that the petition was filed because the respondent allegedly accepted Rs.4,00,000 and agreed to sever the relationship but later returned and complained against him, rather than solely because the marriage was legally void.

Further, a 2012 document referred to the respondent as the appellant’s wife and did not mention any prior marriage, despite the appellant’s assertion that the marriage with her had been forced.

Since the appellant admitted the marriage with the respondent but failed to establish the prior valid marriage necessary to invoke Section 11, the statutory basis for declaring the subsequent marriage void was not proved.

The High Court found no error in the Family Court’s dismissal of H.M.O.P. No. 3053 of 2014 and accordingly dismissed CMA No. 2522 of 2022 without costs.