Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 187
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and M. R. Shah, J.
Can a marriage be declared void if one of the parties had a living spouse at the time of the marriage? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the legal position on the validity of marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court held that a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the conditions specified under the Act. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M. R. Shah, with the opinion authored by Justice M. R. Shah.
Case Background
The appellant, Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil, married the respondent, Sandeep Ananda Patil, on April 5, 2010. This was an inter-caste marriage. According to the appellant, her husband began to harass her, often coming home drunk and misusing her credit card. On June 30, 2012, she left the matrimonial home and sought refuge with her parents. While gathering her belongings, she discovered a photocopy of a Marriage Dissolution Deed dated December 14, 2009, between the respondent and his first wife. This revelation led her to realize that the respondent had married her without a proper divorce from his first marriage, concealing this crucial fact.
The appellant filed Marriage Petition No. 55 of 2012 in the District Court of Pune under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking a declaration that her marriage was null and void. She argued that the respondent had fraudulently obtained her consent by concealing his previous marriage, which was still subsisting at the time of their marriage. The respondent, however, claimed that the appellant was aware of his first marriage and that a customary divorce had taken place before their marriage.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 8, 2007 | Respondent married his first wife, Savita Patil. |
| December 14, 2009 | Marriage Dissolution Deed between the respondent and his first wife (as claimed by appellant). |
| April 5, 2010 | Appellant married the respondent. |
| June 30, 2012 | Appellant left the matrimonial home. |
| 2012 | Appellant filed Marriage Petition No. 55 of 2012 in the District Court of Pune. |
| December 1, 2014 | District Court, Pune, dismissed the marriage petition. |
| March 9, 2016 | Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal. |
| March 6, 2019 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and declared the marriage null and void. |
Course of Proceedings
The District Court of Pune dismissed the marriage petition, stating that the grounds for nullity cited by the appellant did not fall under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and that the petition was also time-barred. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay upheld the District Court’s decision, noting that the appellant was aware of the respondent’s first marriage and customary divorce. The High Court also stated that the appellant was the cause of the divorce of the respondent from his first wife. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the following provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954:
-
Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954: This section specifies the conditions for a valid marriage under the Act. It states that a marriage can be solemnized if, at the time of the marriage, neither party has a living spouse.
“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 neither party has a spouse living…” -
Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954: This section provides that a marriage solemnized under the Act is null and void if any of the conditions in Section 4 are not met, including the condition that neither party should have a living spouse.
“Void marriages.—Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if any of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 4 has not been fulfilled.” -
Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954: This section deals with the grounds for voidable marriages and includes a limitation period for filing such petitions.
“Voidable marriages.—Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity if—(i) the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage; or (ii) the respondent was at the time of the marriage, impotent; or (iii) the consent of either party to the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud, as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872); or (iv) the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. Explanation.—In clause (iii), the expression ‘coercion’ or ‘fraud’ shall have the same meaning as in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872). Provided that no petition under this section shall be entertained if—(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or (ii) the petitioner has, with his or her free consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband and wife after the coercion had ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered.”
The Court emphasized that Section 24, read with Section 4, clearly states that a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage. The Court noted that no period of limitation is prescribed for seeking a declaration of nullity under Section 24, unlike Section 25.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that her marriage to the respondent was void under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, because the respondent’s first marriage was still subsisting at the time of their marriage.
- She contended that the respondent had concealed his first marriage and fraudulently represented himself as a bachelor in the marriage registration form.
- The appellant submitted that the lower courts erred in applying the limitation period under Section 25 of the Act, as Section 24 does not prescribe any limitation for declaring a void marriage.
- The appellant stated that the respondent failed to prove the customary divorce with his first wife.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that the appellant was aware of his first marriage and that a customary divorce had taken place before their marriage.
- He claimed that the appellant was the cause of the divorce between him and his first wife.
- The respondent relied on the decisions in Ass Kaur (Smt) (Deceased) by LRs v. Kartar Singh (Dead) by LRs [(2007) 5 SCC 561] and Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs [(2013) 4 SCC 97] to support his case.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Marriage |
✓ Marriage is void under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, due to a subsisting first marriage of the respondent. ✓ Respondent concealed his first marriage and fraudulently represented himself as a bachelor. |
✓ Appellant was aware of the respondent’s first marriage. ✓ Customary divorce had taken place before the marriage between the appellant and respondent. |
| Limitation | ✓ Section 24 does not prescribe any limitation period for declaring a void marriage, unlike Section 25. | ✓ Marriage petition was barred by limitation under Section 25 of the Act. |
| Customary Divorce | ✓ Respondent failed to prove the customary divorce with his first wife. | ✓ Customary divorce had taken place between the respondent and his first wife. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was void under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, due to the respondent having a living spouse at the time of the marriage.
- Whether the lower courts erred in applying the limitation period under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to a petition seeking a declaration of nullity under Section 24.
- Whether the respondent had proved that there was a customary divorce with his first wife.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the marriage was void under Section 24? | Yes | The Court held that if either party has a living spouse at the time of marriage, the marriage is void under Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. |
| Whether the limitation under Section 25 applies? | No | The Court clarified that Section 25, which has a limitation period, applies to voidable marriages, not void marriages under Section 24, which has no limitation period. |
| Whether the respondent proved customary divorce? | No | The Court noted that the respondent failed to provide evidence or frame a specific issue regarding the customary divorce. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Parliament of India | The Court relied on this provision to define the conditions for a valid marriage, emphasizing that neither party should have a living spouse at the time of the marriage. |
| Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Parliament of India | The Court used this provision to determine that a marriage is void if any of the conditions in Section 4 are not fulfilled, particularly the condition regarding a living spouse. |
| Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Parliament of India | The Court distinguished this provision, stating that it applies to voidable marriages and not to void marriages under Section 24. It also noted that Section 25 has a limitation period, unlike Section 24. |
| Ass Kaur (Smt) (Deceased) by LRs v. Kartar Singh (Dead) by LRs [(2007) 5 SCC 561] | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts. |
| Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs [(2013) 4 SCC 97] | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the District Court. The Court declared the marriage between the appellant and the respondent null and void.
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the marriage was void under Section 24 | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the marriage was void because the respondent had a living spouse at the time of their marriage. |
| Appellant’s submission that the limitation under Section 25 was not applicable | The Court agreed, stating that Section 25 applies to voidable marriages, not void marriages under Section 24, which does not have a limitation period. |
| Appellant’s submission that the respondent failed to prove customary divorce | The Court accepted this submission, noting the absence of a specific issue and evidence regarding the customary divorce. |
| Respondent’s submission that the appellant was aware of the first marriage | The Court did not accept this submission, stating that it was not relevant to the issue of the validity of the marriage under Section 24. |
| Respondent’s submission that customary divorce had taken place | The Court rejected this submission due to the lack of a specific issue framed and the absence of evidence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Section 4, Special Marriage Act, 1954: The Court relied on this provision to define the conditions for a valid marriage, emphasizing that neither party should have a living spouse at the time of the marriage.
- Section 24, Special Marriage Act, 1954: The Court used this provision to determine that a marriage is void if any of the conditions in Section 4 are not fulfilled, particularly the condition regarding a living spouse.
- Section 25, Special Marriage Act, 1954: The Court distinguished this provision, stating that it applies to voidable marriages and not to void marriages under Section 24. It also noted that Section 25 has a limitation period, unlike Section 24.
- Ass Kaur (Smt) (Deceased) by LRs v. Kartar Singh (Dead) by LRs [(2007) 5 SCC 561]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts.
- Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs [(2013) 4 SCC 97]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear legal position under Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which states that a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage. The Court also emphasized the lack of evidence and a specific issue regarding the customary divorce claimed by the respondent.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict adherence to Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 | 40% |
| Lack of evidence and issue regarding customary divorce | 30% |
| Inapplicability of limitation period under Section 25 | 20% |
| Respondent’s failure to prove customary divorce | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court emphasized that the law clearly states that a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage. The Court also noted that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the customary divorce.
The Court rejected the respondent’s arguments, stating that the appellant’s knowledge of the first marriage was not relevant to the issue of the validity of the marriage under Section 24. The Court also clarified that the limitation period under Section 25 does not apply to void marriages under Section 24.
“Therefore, considering Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Act, if at the time of marriage either of the party has spouse living, then the said marriage is a void marriage and a decree of nullity can be passed on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party.”
“No period of limitation is prescribed so far as presentation of petition for declaration to declare a marriage being nullity/void marriage, under Section 24 of the Act and rightly so, as once the marriage is void the same is a nullity and at any time the same can be declared as nullity being a void marriage.”
“In the present case, neither an issue has been framed nor even the respondent husband has led any evidence and proved that there was a customary divorce between respondent and his first wife.”
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- A marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage, as per Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
- There is no limitation period for seeking a declaration of nullity for a void marriage under Section 24 of the Act.
- Customary divorce must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence.
- The knowledge of the appellant regarding the first marriage is not relevant to the issue of the validity of the marriage under Section 24.
- This judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of the conditions for a valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the District Court. The Marriage Petition No. 55 of 2012 was decreed, and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was declared null and void.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a marriage is void ab initio if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage, as per Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. This judgment clarifies that the limitation period under Section 25 does not apply to void marriages under Section 24. The court also emphasized that customary divorce must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence. This judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of the conditions for a valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The judgment also clarifies that the knowledge of the appellant regarding the first marriage is not relevant to the issue of the validity of the marriage under Section 24.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil vs. Sandeep Ananda Patil clarifies the legal position on the validity of marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court held that a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse at the time of the marriage, as per Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Act. The Court also clarified that there is no limitation period for seeking a declaration of nullity for a void marriage under Section 24, and that customary divorce must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence. This judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of the conditions for a valid marriage under the Act.