HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 — Ss. 5(i), 11 — Void marriage — Second marriage — Condition under S.5(i) requiring that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage — Ex parte divorce later set aside — Effect — Held, marriage between parties contracted during subsistence of earlier marriage is null and void and confers no legal status or rights (Paras 4, 8). Marriage in contravention of S.5(i) is void ipso jure; no prior decree of nullity needed — such marriage can be ignored in law (Para 9).

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 — Ss. 5(i), 11 — Void marriage — Second marriage — Condition under S.5(i) requiring that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage — Ex parte divorce later set aside — Effect — Held, marriage between parties contracted during subsistence of earlier marriage is null and void and confers no legal status or rights (Paras 4, 8). Marriage in contravention of S.5(i) is void ipso jure; no prior decree of nullity needed — such marriage can be ignored in law (Para 9).

HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 — S.18 — “Hindu wife” — Meaning — Right to maintenance presupposes existence of a valid marriage — Woman in a void marriage is not a “Hindu wife” and is not entitled to maintenance or interim maintenance (Paras 6, 7, 8, 13).

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.125 — “Wife”— Scope — Supreme Court precedents applied — Woman whose marriage is void for subsistence of earlier marriage has no claim to maintenance under S.125 CrPC — Principles reiterated (Paras 9–11).

II. ANALYSIS 

The following analysis is NOT part of the judgment’s wording.
It is a doctrinal explanation grounded in the judgment’s reasoning.

1. Nature of the Second Marriage (Paras 4, 8, 9)

The Court’s reasoning establishes:

• The respondent’s marriage to the petitioner took place when the first marriage was legally subsisting (because the ex parte divorce was later set aside).

• Therefore, under Section 5(i) the marriage was void.

• Under Section 11, such a marriage is void ipso jure.

• Para 9 explicitly states that void marriages may be “ignored” in law even without a decree.

This is the foundation for all subsequent consequences.

2. Status of the Petitioner and Meaning of “Hindu Wife” (Paras 6, 7, 8)

The Court interprets “Hindu wife” for Section 18 HAMA:

• A woman must be in a valid marriage to qualify.

• A void marriage confers no spousal status (Paras 7–8).

• Therefore, she cannot invoke S.18 for maintenance.

• The Court’s finding is categorical and tied directly to the statutory scheme.

3. Supreme Court Precedents Anchoring the Position (Paras 9–11)

The judgment relies heavily on:

• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav

• Vimala

• Khemchand

• Bakulabai

These authorities uniformly hold that:

• A second marriage during subsistence of the first is void.

• A woman in such marriage has no right to maintenance.

The Delhi High Court applies these principles without deviation.

4. Scope of Relief (Para 13)

The Court concludes that:

• Since the petitioner is not a "Hindu wife", she cannot claim maintenance under S.18.

• Consequently, her interim maintenance application and main petition fail.

This disposes of the entire proceedings.