Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i), 11, 17 – Void Marriage – Maintainability of Petition First Wife's Right to Petition under S. 11 HMA: (i) Interpretation of "Either Party Thereto": The phrase "either party thereto" in Section 11 of the HMA, 1955, concerning a petition for a decree of nullity in respect of a void marriage (due to contravention of S. 5(i)—bigamy), cannot be construed narrowly to mean only the two persons who participated in the void marriage. (ii) Purposive Interpretation: The HMA, 1955, is a social welfare legislation intended to eliminate the vice of polygamy. A narrow interpretation would defeat the legislative intent, as the husband and the second wife could allow the marriage to subsist, prejudicing the legal rights and matrimonial status of the first wife. The court must adopt a purposive approach (social context adjudication). (iii) First Wife as Aggrieved Party: The first legally wedded wife is the most aggrieved party by the solemnization of the second, bigamous marriage. Consequently, she is entitled to file a petition under Section 11 HMA for a declaration that the second marriage is null and void.

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i), 11, 17 – Void Marriage – Maintainability of Petition

First Wife's Right to Petition under S. 11 HMA:

(i) Interpretation of "Either Party Thereto": The phrase "either party thereto" in Section 11 of the HMA, 1955, concerning a petition for a decree of nullity in respect of a void marriage (due to contravention of S. 5(i)—bigamy), cannot be construed narrowly to mean only the two persons who participated in the void marriage.

(ii) Purposive Interpretation: The HMA, 1955, is a social welfare legislation intended to eliminate the vice of polygamy. A narrow interpretation would defeat the legislative intent, as the husband and the second wife could allow the marriage to subsist, prejudicing the legal rights and matrimonial status of the first wife. The court must adopt a purposive approach (social context adjudication).

(iii) First Wife as Aggrieved Party: The first legally wedded wife is the most aggrieved party by the solemnization of the second, bigamous marriage. Consequently, she is entitled to file a petition under Section 11 HMA for a declaration that the second marriage is null and void.

(Paras 9, 21, 29)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Distinction: Void vs. Voidable Marriage

(i) Void Marriage (S. 11, S. 17): A marriage performed in contravention of S. 5(i) (bigamy) is void ab initio (non-existent in the eyes of law) and cannot be cured or ratified. The right to challenge such a marriage should not be strictly confined to the parties, as third parties affected by it (like the first wife) may bring a suit for its annulment.

(ii) Voidable Marriage (S. 12): A voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting until a competent court annuls it, and the right to annulment is confined to the parties.

(Para 21)

C. Family Courts Act, 1984 – S. 7(1) Explanation (b)

The enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984, further supports the right of the first wife to seek relief.

(i) Jurisdiction: Section 7(1) Explanation (b) grants the Family Court jurisdiction over "a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person." This provision allows the Family Court to entertain a petition by the first wife who is seeking a declaration concerning the validity of her husband's second marriage and her own matrimonial status.

(Para 25)

D. Rejected Case Law/Principle

The judgment rejected the strict construction adopted by the following precedents:

• Lakshmi Ammal v. Ramaswami Naicker and Another (AIR 1960 Mad 6).

• Kedar Nath Gupta v. Sm. Suprava (AIR 1963 Pat 311).

The Court found that adhering to these precedents would defeat the social objective of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(Paras 12, 14, 17, 20, 29)