Whether a husband can, in collateral proceedings for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, rely merely upon a marriage certificate of the wife's alleged earlier marriage to contend that the subsequent marriage is void and thereby deny maintenance, without first obtaining a decree of nullity from a competent court.

advocatemmmohan

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 – Section 11 – Void marriage – Whether decree of nullity is invariably necessary before treating marriage as void – Disputed earlier marriage – Collateral proceedings – Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Question of Law:
Whether a husband can, in collateral proceedings for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, rely merely upon a marriage certificate of the wife's alleged earlier marriage to contend that the subsequent marriage is void and thereby deny maintenance, without first obtaining a decree of nullity from a competent court.

Held: No.

Although a marriage contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act is void ab initio and ordinarily need not await a decree of nullity, where the very fact or validity of the alleged earlier marriage is seriously disputed, the marital status cannot be determined in collateral maintenance proceedings. Until a competent court declares the marriage void, the parties must be treated as husband and wife for the purpose of relief under the Domestic Violence Act. Mere production of a marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act is insufficient to conclusively determine marital status in such proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:
The principle that a void marriage is void ipso jure does not dispense with the necessity of a judicial declaration where the foundational facts rendering the marriage void are themselves disputed. In such circumstances, a competent civil court alone can adjudicate the validity of the marriage. Until such adjudication, collateral courts cannot deny statutory benefits by assuming the marriage to be void.

---

Paras Relied Upon (AIR Style)

• Paras 13–14: Issue identified; necessity of first determining marital status before deciding maintenance.
• Paras 15–18: Discussion of Yamunabai, M.M. Malhotra, and distinction where earlier marriage is disputed.
• Para 19: Core ratio—where the alleged earlier marriage is disputed, declaration by a competent court is necessary; collateral proceedings cannot decide validity merely on the basis of a marriage certificate.
• Paras 20–21: Consequential relief restoring maintenance.

Deoki Panjhiyara vs Shahshi Bhushan Narayan Azad & Anr on 12 December, 2012

2013 AIR SCW 168