SMT. RANJANA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusROHIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                  FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 374 of 2026

Smt. Ranjana Singh And Another
                                                                 .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
Rohit Singh And Another
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         :   Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, Ramesh Kumar
                                     Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)        :

Court No. - 2
                      HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
                      HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

Re : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2026
1. Application is filed for condoning the delay of 1246 days in filing the
appeal.
2. In view of what has been stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. The delay condonation application is allowed.
4. Office is requested to allot regular number to the appeal.
Re : Order on the Appeal
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 12.10.2022, passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family
Court.
2. The undisputed facts in this case as per learned counsel for the appellant is
that she is the first wife of the defendant no.1 Rohit Singh. Rohit Singh
allegedly got married to "X" (identity being protected as the allegation
against the defendant no.2 is of being a party to bigamy). Aggrieved by the
second marriage of her husband during her lifetime and during the validity
of the marriage to the appellant, the appellant filed a case under Section 11
of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare the second marriage of her husband
with "X" as void. The learned trial court dismissed the said suit on the
ground that Section 11 can only be invoked by either of the parties to the
second marriage who wants the marriage to be declared as void. The learned
trial court held that as the appellant herein was the first wife, she could not
file a suit under Section 11 to declare the second marriage of her husband to
"X" as void marriage. In this regard, Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act
lays down a condition precedent for a hindu marriage of which the first one
is that neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Section
11 has to be read in conjunction with Section 5. Section 11 of the Hindu
                                                                                              FAPLD No. 374 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                    Marriage Act is reproduced hereunder:-

                                         "Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of 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 it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in
                                         clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5."

                                    3. From the above, it is clear that the "either party thereto" refers to the
                                    second marriage whereby the right to declare the marriage as void is given to
                                    either the husband or the wife to have the marriage declared as void where
                                    the subsistence of the first marriage was not disclosed by either of the parties
                                    to the other who would not have otherwise consented for the marriage.
                                    4. Thus from a conjoint reading it is clear that the order passed by the
                                    learned trial court holding that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was
                                    only the right of "X" whom the husband of the appellant married during the
                                    subsistence of their marriage to file under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
                                    Act if she was so aggrieved, cannot be faulted.
                                    5. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act however reserves the right of the
                                    appellant to prosecute the husband for bigamy under the I.P.C/BNS.
                                    6. The dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the
                                    Hindu Marriage Act does not preclude her right to present a civil suit for
                                    declaring the second marriage of her husband as void under the general law.
                                    7. Therefore, this Court on the basis of the admitted facts does not find any
                                    necessity to interfere with the impugned order and this appeal is disposed of
                                    reserving the right of the appellant to file a civil suit under the general law
                                    for declaration of the second marriage as void.
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Gaurav Kuls
                                                                             (Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad