1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO......................OF 2019

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.25080 OF 2016)

SWAPNANJALI SANDEEP PATIL                                                  Versus

…APPELLANT

SANDEEP ANANDA PATIL …RESPONDENT                      

  J U D G M E N T

M.R.SHAH, J.

     Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and

order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the High Court of  Judicature at

Bombay in First Appeal No.342 of 2015 by which the High Court has

dismissed  the  said  appeal  filed  by  the  original  applicant  and  has

confirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014 passed by the

learned District Judge, Pune in Marriage Petition No.55 of 2012 by

which the learned District Judge dismissed the said marriage petition,

2

the original applicant/appellant-wife has preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:  

(a) That  the  appellant  herein  married  with  respondent–

husband on 05.04.2010. (b) That their marriage was an inter-caste marriage. (c) According  to  the  appellant-wife  the  respondent-husband

started harassing her in various ways. (d) That he used to come in a drunken state and he withdrew

money from the bank account of the appellant by using her

credit card. Therefore, on 30.06.2012 the appellant left the

matrimonial house and took shelter in her parental home. (e) According  to  the  appellant-wife,  while  gathering  her

personal  belongings  for  leaving  the  house,  the  appellant

came across  a  zerox  copy  of  Marriage  Dissolution  Deed,

dated  14.12.2009  between  the  respondent  and  his  first

wife. (f) She realized that the respondent had married her without

obtaining the decree of  divorce from the competent court

and  that  at  that  time  of  marriage  the  respondent  was

having a living spouse and that he has suppressed the fact

of the first marriage from the appellant.  (g) Therefore, the appellant-wife filed Marriage Petition No.55

of 2012 in the Court of District Court, Pune under Section

25  of  the  Special  Marriage  Act,  1954,  for  declaration  of

marriage as null and void.

3

4.  Thus,  according  to  the  appellant,  the  respondent  obtained  her

consent for marriage by fraud; the appellant was ignorant to the first

marriage of the respondent at the time of marriage; the respondent, at

the time of registration of marriage, in the document of marriage has

declared himself as bachelor; that he concealed the fact of his earlier

marriage  which  was  in  existence  on  the  date  of  marriage  of  the

appellant with the respondent; and that at the time of her marriage

with the respondent, the respondent’s first marriage was subsisting

and therefore according to the appellant, she is entitled for declaration

of nullity of marriage.  

5.  The  application  was  vehemently  opposed  by  the

respondent-husband. According to the respondent-husband, prior to

his marriage with the applicant, they were having a love affair; that

the respondent married with the daughter of his maternal uncle on

08.03.2007 at Bhusawal and the applicant was in knowledge of the

said fact. According to the respondent, after his marriage he started

residing with his wife at Dehu Road. According to the respondent, at

the  time  of  their  marriage  on  05.04.2010,  the  applicant  was  in

knowledge of his first marriage and despite the same she married with

him. According to the respondent, at the time of marriage, as such, he

was not at all willing to marry to the applicant, however, because of

the pressure of the applicant and her threat to commit suicide he was

4

compelled to marry the applicant. It was also the case on behalf of the

respondent-husband that there was a customary divorce between the

respondent and his first wife, which was prior to the solemnization of

the marriage between the applicant and the respondent. Therefore, it

was  the  specific  case  on  behalf  of  the  respondent-husband  that

neither there was any fraud nor there was any suppression of his first

marriage by the respondent-husband and therefore it was prayed to

dismiss the petition.

6.The learned trial court framed the following issues :

“(1) Whether marriage of petitioner and respondent performed on

5.4.2010  under  Special  Marriage  Act  by  suppressing  previous

marriage of respondent, performed on 8.3.2007 with Savita Patil in the

said marriage was in existence on the date of marriage of party?

(2) Whether consent of petitioner has been sought by respondent

for the above marriage by suppressing previous marriage?

(3)  Whether  respondent  has  meted  out  mental  cruelty  to

petitioner?

(4)  Whether  petitioner  has  forced  the  respondent  to  perform

marriage  with  her  by  giving  threat  of  suicide  having  knowledge  of

substitution of marriage of respondent with Savita Patil?

(5) Whether the petitioner justified decree of divorce?

(6) What order?”

5

7.  That  the  learned  trial  court  dismissed  the  marriage  petition  by

observing that as the applicant is seeking nullity of marriage only on

the grounds that she was ill-treated by the respondent and on the date

of marriage the respondent was having a subsisting first marriage and

her consent to the marriage was obtained by fraud, none of the above

grounds is a ground for nullity of marriage as per the provisions of the

Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Act’). The learned trial court therefore did not go into the details of

the  allegations  and counter-allegations made  in the  plaint  and the

written statement on the ground that the case of the applicant does

not fall in any of the provisions enumerated under Section 25 of the

Act and therefore the applicant is not entitled for a decree of nullity of

marriage.

8. Learned trial court also observed that even the application was out

of period of limitation as according to the provisions of Section 25  of

the Act,  the period of  limitation is  one year after  the  coercion had

ceased or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered or the

petitioner has with his or her free consent lived with 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.  

9.  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree

passed by the learned trial court dismissing her marriage petition, the

6

appellant-wife  preferred  the  appeal  before  the  Bombay  High  Court

bearing  First  Appeal  No.342  of  2015.  Before  the  High  Court  the

grievance made on behalf of the appellant was that the district court

has decided the issue of limitation without framing the issue on that

ground.  It  was  submitted  that  since  no  issue  was  framed,  the

appellant  did  not  get  an  opportunity  to  lead  the  evidence  and,

therefore,  first  she  was  deprived  of  an  opportunity  of  leading  the

evidence  to  show  the  fact  as  regards  the  knowledge  of  the  earlier

marriage  of  respondent,  and  the  same  has  not  been  specifically

pleaded anywhere. Therefore, it was submitted that in the absence of

any  such  pleadings,  there  could  not  have  been  any  evidence  as

regards the fact of knowledge. The High Court did not accept the same

by observing  that  though ordinarily  in  the  absence  of  framing  an

issue and giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the

issue  cannot  be  decided,  in  the  present  case,  there  is  sufficient

evidence before the  court that the appellant was, in fact, well aware of

the  fact  of  earlier  marriage  of  the  respondent  and  the  customary

divorce obtained by him and, therefore, the uncontroverted evidence of

the  respondent  has  established  that  in  fact  the  appellant  was  the

cause of divorce of the respondent from his first wife. By observing so,

the High Court has dismissed the first appeal.  

10.  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the  impugned judgment

7

passed by the High Court, the appellant-wife has preferred the present

appeal.

10.1 Shri Vinay Navare, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of

the  appellant-wife  and  Shri  Sushil  Kumar  Jain,  learned  Senior

Advocate  has  appeared  as  an  Amicus  Curiae  on  behalf  of  the

respondent-husband.

11. Shri Navare, learned Advocate has vehemently submitted that, in

the present case, both the learned trial court as well as the High Court

have not at all considered Section 24 of the Act. Relying upon Section

24 of the Act, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Navare that, at the

time of marriage between the appellant and the respondent, the first

marriage  of  the  respondent  with  his  first  wife  was  subsisting  and

therefore the marriage between the appellant and respondent was a

nullity/void marriage. It is submitted that, in the present case, neither

the district court nor the High Court had considered Section 24 of the

Act and only considered Section 25 of the Act.

11.1 Further, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Navare that though it

was  the  case  on  behalf  of  respondent-husband  that  there  was  a

customary divorce between the respondent-husband and his first wife,

which  was  prior  to  the  marriage  between  the  appellant  and  the

respondent, neither there was any specific issue framed by the learned

trial  court  nor  even the  respondent-husband led any evidence  and

8

prayed for  the  customary  divorce  between the  respondent-husband

and his  first  wife.  It  is  submitted,  therefore,  in  absence  of  proving

customary divorce between the respondent-husband and his first wife,

there was a subsisting marriage between the respondent-husband and

his first wife at the time of the marriage between the appellant and the

respondent and therefore Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Act

was required to be considered.

11.2 It is submitted by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellant-wife that so far as for the declaration sought for in view of

Section 24 of the Act is  concerned, there is  no period of limitation

provided, as a declaration for a void marriage can be sought at any

time,  as  the  void  marriage  as  is  void  and  nullity.  It  is  submitted

therefore the limitation provided under Section 25 of the Act shall not

be applicable in a case where the declaration for nullity of marriage is

sought  in  view  of  Section  24  read  with  Section  4  of  the  Act  is

concerned.

11.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

appeal.

12. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Jain, learned Senior

advocate  appearing  as  an  Amicus  Curiae  on  behalf  of  the

respondent-husband. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Jain that, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned trial court as

9

well as the High Court have rightly dismissed the marriage petition

and have rightly refused to grant the relief of declaration of nullity of

marriage  between  the  appellant  and  the  respondent,  considering

Section 25 of the Act and by observing that the marriage petition was

barred by period of limitation, as provided under Section 25 of the Act.

12.1 It is further submitted by Shri Jain that it was the specific case

on behalf of the respondent-husband that, at the time of marriage, the

appellant was in the knowledge of the first marriage of the respondent

with his first wife. It is submitted that as such she was the root cause

for  the  divorce  between  the  respondent  and  his  first  wife.  It  is

submitted  that  as  such  the  customary  divorce  had  taken  place

between the respondent-husband and his first wife much prior to the

date  of  marriage  between  the  appellant  and  the  respondent.  It  is

submitted, therefore, when there was already a dissolution of marriage

between  the  respondent  and  his  first  wife,  by  way  of  customary

divorce, which was much prior to the marriage between the appellant

and the respondent and, therefore the marriage between the appellant

and the respondent cannot be said to be void under Section 24 of the

Act.

12.2 Shri Jain, learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied upon the

decision of this Court in the case of  Ass Kaur (Smt) (Deceased) by

LRs v. Kartar Singh (Dead) by LRs (2007) 5 SCC 561 and the case of

10

Laxmibai  (Dead)  through LRs v.  Bhagwantbuva (Dead)  through

LRs (2013) 4 SCC 97.

12.3  Making  the  above  submissions,  it  is  prayed  to  dismiss  the

present appeal.

13. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties at length.  

13.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant filed the

marriage petition for a declaration to declare her marriage with the

respondent as null and void on the ground that, at the time of their

marriage, the first marriage of the respondent with his first wife was

subsisting; that the respondent committed a fraud and suppressed the

material fact of his first marriage, and in fact, in the registration form

he stated himself to be a bachelor. On the other hand, it was the case

on behalf of the respondent that neither there was any suppression

nor any fraud committed by him. It  was the case on behalf  of  the

respondent  that  the  appellant  was  in  the  knowledge  of  his  first

marriage and that as such there was a customary divorce between the

respondent and his first wife, which was much prior to the marriage

between the appellant and the respondent. That the learned trial court

dismissed  the  marriage  petition  on  the  ground  that  none  of  the

grounds stated in the plaint for declaration of the marriage between

the  appellant  and  respondent  as  null  and  void,  would  fall  within

11

Section 25 of the Act and that, even otherwise, the marriage petition is

beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in explanation to Section

25 of the Act. It is required to be noted that, however, neither the trial

court nor even the High Court at all considered Section 24 read with

Section 4 of the Act nor considered the case on behalf of the appellant

that  as  at  the  time  of  her  marriage  with  the  respondent,  the

respondent’s first marriage was subsisting and therefore the marriage

between the appellant and the respondent would be void and nullity.

13.2  As  per  Section  4  of  the  Act,  the  marriage  between  any  two

persons may be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act if at the

time of the marriage neither party has a spouse living. Section 24 of

the  Act  provides  that  any  marriage  solemnized  under  the  Special

Marriage 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.  Clause (a)  of  Section 4

provides that neither party shall have a spouse living at the time of

marriage. 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

12

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.  Therefore,  both the  trial

court as well as the High Court have committed an error in observing

that the marriage petition was barred by limitation. While holding so,

both the trial  court as well  as the High Court had considered first

proviso to Section 25 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, we are of the opinion that Section 25 of the Act shall  not be

applicable and Section 24 of the Act would be applicable which does

not provide for any period of limitation like first proviso to Section 25

of the Act.  

14.  Now,  so  far  as  the  submission  on  behalf  of  the

respondent-husband  that  there  was  already  a  customary  divorce

between him and his first wife, which was much prior to the marriage

between the appellant and the respondent and that the appellant was

in the knowledge of his first marriage is concerned, at the outset, it is

required to be noted that as such there is no specific issue framed by

the learned trial court on the alleged customary divorce between the

respondent and his first wife. Even there was no specific issue framed

with respect to the limitation.  There was not even an issue framed

with respect to the knowledge of the appellant that she was having the

13

knowledge of the first marriage of the respondent with his first wife. In

absence of any such issue framed, the learned trial court as well as

the High Court have committed a grave error in observing that there

was a customary divorce between the  respondent-husband and his

first wife. There must be a specific issue framed by the Court on the

aforesaid and the same is required to be established and proved by

leading  evidence.  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. Even the respondent-husband was required to prove that

such a customary divorce was permissible in their caste/community.

In the absence of any such issue or any evidence, the Courts below

were  not  justified in  observing that  there was a customary divorce

between the respondent and his first wife. Therefore, in absence of the

above,  it  can  be  said  that  at  the  time  of  marriage  between  the

appellant and the respondent, the respondent had a living spouse and,

therefore, considering Section 24 read with Section 4 of the Act, the

marriage  between  the  appellant  and  respondent  was  void  and  the

appellant was entitled to a decree of nullity at her instance. Therefore,

both the Courts below have materially erred in rejecting the marriage

petition. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the

appellant is entitled to a decree of nullity of the marriage between the

14

appellant and the respondent.

15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal  succeeds.  The impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court dated 09.03.2016 passed in First Appeal No.342/2015, as

well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned district court,

dismissing the marriage petition, are hereby quashed and set aside.

The Marriage Petition No.55 of 2012 is hereby decreed and there shall

be a decree of nullity of the marriage of the appellant-wife with the

respondent-husband, solemnized on 05.04.2010 before the Marriage

Officer, Pune. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant-wife

and  the  respondent-husband  solemnized  on  05.04.2010  before  the

Marriage Officer, Pune is hereby declared as null and void. No costs.

                                             …………………….............................J.

                                                          (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.…………………….............................J.                                             (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi, March 6, 2019.