Subsequent Marriage Void Absent Proof of Prior Marriage Validity Over First Registered Marriage

The Appellants (Sonamukhi and her son Arjun) challenged a judgment dated 04.10.2024 by the District Judge, Kamrup (M) in a succession case regarding the debts and securities of late Madan Basfore (d. 21.09.2016).

Sonamukhi claimed to be the first legal wife, married in 1990.

Respondent No. 1 (Rekha) contested this, asserting she married Madan on 19.01.1990—a marriage registered and supported by a certificate and the testimony of the deceased’s mother.

The Trial Court found Sonamukhi failed to prove a prior marriage and declared her marriage void/unrecognized, though it granted her son Arjun a share.

The Appellants appealed, arguing Rekha was a minor at the time of her marriage and that the marriage certificate was unauthorized.

1. Whether Appellant No. 1 (Sonamukhi) proved a valid marriage to the deceased prior to the marriage of Respondent No. 1 (Rekha).

2. Whether the alleged minority of Respondent No. 1 at the time of marriage rendered her marriage to the deceased void, thereby entitling the Appellant to the succession certificate.

The court applied Section 372 and Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, governing the application for and appeal against the grant of succession certificates.

Under Hindu law (applicable to the parties), a marriage involving a minor is "voidable" rather than "void ab initio"; such a marriage remains valid unless a decree of nullity is obtained at the instance of the minor party.

The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a specific fact (existence of a prior marriage or minority of the opponent).

The High Court observed that Sonamukhi failed to provide a specific date for her marriage, whereas Rekha produced a marriage certificate dated 19.01.1990 and testimony from the deceased's mother confirming the ceremony.

Regarding the Appellant’s claim that Rekha was a minor in 1990 (based on a claim petition in an unrelated motor accident case), the Court held that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding this minority.

The Court reasoned that even if Rekha were a minor, the marriage would only be voidable at her option, not void; in the absence of a judicial decree declaring it void, the marriage remained legally valid.

Sonamukhi’s subsequent marriage during the subsistence of Madan’s first marriage with Rekha lacked legal recognition for the purpose of succession.

The High Court affirmed the distribution of the deceased's debts and securities into five equal shares (1/5th each) among: (i) the mother of the deceased, (ii) Respondent No. 1 (Rekha), (iii) Respondent No. 2 (Rajesh), (iv) Respondent No. 3 (Puja), and (v) Appellant No. 2 (Arjun, the son of the first appellant).

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.