Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court has ruled that a second marriage entered into without a valid divorce from the first spouse is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court further held that if the consent of the second wife for cohabitation is obtained under the false pretext of a lawful marriage, it amounts to rape.

A division bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, were hearing an appeal challenging the order of the I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, which had dismissed the wife’s petition for annulment of marriage and alimony.

The appellant/ second wife had filed a petition under Sections 11 (void marriages), 5 (conditions for a Hindu marriage), and 25 (permanent alimony and maintenance) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of nullity on the ground that the respondent/ husband was not divorced from his first wife at the time of their marriage. It was further contended that the respondent fraudulently misrepresented his marital status, leading her to believe that he was legally divorced. The appellant also sought alimony of ₹1 crore.

The trial court had dismissed the petition, reasoning that the appellant was aware of the respondent’s first marriage and had failed to provide financial documents to support her alimony claim. However, the High Court set aside the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal.

The High Court found that the respondent had not proven the existence of a customary divorce with his first wife, who was in a coma for the last 14 years, rendering his marriage with the second wife legally void under Section 5(i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court held: “Since the respondent knew at the material point of time that he had a wife living at the time of entering into physical relations with the appellant and the appellant’s consent to such physical relations was premised on her believing that the respondent is her lawfully-wedded husband, the respondent is guilty of the offence punishable under sections 375 and 376 of the IPC and alternatively, under sections 63 and 64 of the BNS.”

The court also criticized the trial court’s reasoning, noting that it failed to consider the invalidity of the marriage while denying alimony. The court termed the trial court’s findings “presumptuous and objectionable”  as it unfairly imputed knowledge of the respondent’s marital status to the appellant without proper evidence.

The court found a contradiction in the Family Court's ruling, stating that while alimony was denied on the ground that the appellant was a second wife, the court failed to determine whether the respondent’s first marriage was still valid. “The Trial Court failed to consider that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, both Hindus, could not have been legally solemnized if the respondent had a spouse living at the time of the marriage,” the court noted.

Accordingly, the court set aside the trial court’s order, annulled the marriage, and held the respondent guilty of rape.

Additionally, the court ruled that the trial court’s finding that the appellant is disentitled to alimony as the second wife of the respondent is “wholly perverse.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur, the court reaffirmed that a spouse from a void marriage is also entitled to claim alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

 

Case Number: FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.19 of 2025

Appearance: Advocate Duvva Pavan Kumar (For the appellant); Advocate U. Sri Pranav (For the respondent).