Solemnized Marriage During Subsistence Of Her Previous Marriage: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Order Granting Maintenance

The High Court was considering a criminal revision challenging the order passed by a Civil Judge under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereby the application for interim relief in terms of Section 23 was allowed and maintenance was granted.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra said, “...this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that opposite party-2 solemnized marriage with revisionist during the subsistence of her previous marriage. As such, opposite party-2 has herself indulged in polygamy, which is not permissible in law. It was on account of aforesaid fact that in the criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party-2, Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused including revisionist.”

Advocate Nipun Singh represented the Revisionist, while Advocate Arvind Kumar Trivedi represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The marriage of the second opposite party was solemnized with the husband (revisionist) in 2015 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. However, subsequently, differences arose between the parties on account of marital discord. Resultantly, the wife lodged an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 313, 354(A)(1), 509, 323, 34 IPC. The accused persons, including the revisionist, filed an anticipatory bail application before the competent Court. During the course of the hearing, it was discovered by the Court that the woman was already married.

Ultimately, the accused were granted anticipatory bail. Against this order, the opposite party- wife filed a bail cancellation application, which was rejected. The Court again reprimanded the woman for abusing the process of Court. Thereafter the Family Court rejected her application for interim maintenance on the ground that her marriage with revisionist during the subsistence of first marriage was illegal. When the woman initiated proceedings against Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court allowed the claim for interim maintenance and the revisionist was directed to pay interim maintenance to her at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month. The appeal filed by the revisionist was rejected. It was in such circumstances that the revisionist approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the woman solemnized marriage with the revisionist during the subsistence of her previous marriage. “As such, opposite party-2 has herself indulged in polygamy, which is not permissible in law. It was on account of aforesaid fact that in the criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party-2, Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused including revisionist.”

Considering that the marriage of the parties was declared null and void by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction, the Court noted that the declaratory decree qua the marriage of revisionist with the opposite party, as null and void had become final. “Since by means of the declaratory decree, the marriage of the parties has been declared null and void, it shall relate back to the date of marriage. The logical outcome of the same shall be that once the marriage of the parties itself has been declared void-ab-initio, the subsequent relationship between the parties is of no consequence”, it said.

Thus, noting that there was no relationship between the parties in terms of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Bench noted that the orders could not be sustained. Thus, the Bench allowed the revision while setting aside the order allowing the claim for interim maintenance.

Cause Title: A v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111343)

Appearance

Revisionist: Advocates Nipun Singh, Sumit Suri

Opposite Party: Advocates Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Balbeer Singh, Dhruv Kumar Dhuriya, G.A., Advocate Saurabh Shukla

Click here to read/download Order