Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61102-DB. CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1314 of 2024 Allahabad High Court. Ketan Rastogi And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 24 September, 2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i) & 11 – Void marriage – Marriage contracted during subsistence of earlier marriage – Void ab initio – Whether decree of nullity is a condition precedent to treating such marriage as void – Held, No. (Paras 12-15)

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i) & 11 – Void marriage – Marriage contracted during subsistence of earlier marriage – Void ab initio – Whether decree of nullity is a condition precedent to treating such marriage as void – Held, No. (Paras 12-15)

Held: A marriage solemnised in contravention of Section 5(i) is void ipso jure under Section 11 and is non-existent in the eyes of law from its inception. Although Section 11 permits either party to obtain a formal decree of nullity, such declaration is not a condition precedent to the legal consequence of voidness where the issue directly arises. The distinction between void marriages under Section 11 and voidable marriages under Section 12 remains fundamental.

Relied on:

• Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad, (2013) 2 SCC 137. (Para 12)
• Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530. (Para 13)
• M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 351. (Para 13)

---

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – S. 11 – Declaration of marital status – Competent court – Whether declaration regarding validity or nullity of marriage can be rendered in collateral proceedings – Held, No. (Paras 15-18)

Held: Determination of marital status strikes at the foundation of civil status and can be made only by a competent court in appropriate proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. In proceedings arising out of a recall application in a criminal writ, the High Court declined to adjudicate the correctness of the Family Court's decree under Section 11, leaving the parties to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

Civil Procedure – Recall of order – Compromise order – Subsequent judicial development – Whether subsequent dismissal of a matrimonial proceeding constitutes a ground to recall a compromise order quashing criminal proceedings – Held, No. (Paras 17-18)

Held: An order passed on the basis of a duly verified compromise cannot be recalled merely because a subsequent judicial pronouncement is alleged to have altered the legal position between the parties. Such subsequent development does not invalidate the compromise or furnish sufficient ground for recall. The aggrieved party must challenge the subsequent judgment in accordance with law.