1. Deepti Rajan v. Rajasekhar, 2016 (1) KLT 470
If a valid marriage is established between the spouses on a particular date, a second marriage between the same parties will become insignificant for the purpose of establishment of a legal relationship under the marital tie. In certain cases, even if a second marriage between the same parties is solemnized, the date of such solemnization will be of no consequence or significance, because of the existing marital relationship established legally, on an earlier point of time. In such situation, the subsequent marriage becomes void at the option of any one of the parties to the marriage. In other words, any one of the spouses may be entitled to take a contention that the other party cannot seek for a dissolution based on the marriage solemnized subsequently, because the marital relationship has already come into existence on a prior date, based on the marriage contracted earlier.
2. Prabir Chandra Chatterjee v. Kaveri Guha: AIR 1987 Cal 191
The wife had filed a petition for divorce labelling it as both under under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In that case, the marriage between the parties was first solemnised according to Hindu rites under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and it was thereafter also registered under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Calcutta High Court held that a marriage validly solemnised under any other form cannot, so long as it continues, be again solemnised under Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act and it can only be registered under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act. It was further held that on such registration of the marriage under Chapter III, the marriage shall thereafter be deemed to be solemnised under the Special Marriage Act. It was also held that a solemnisation under Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act of a marriage already duly celebrated and solemnised under another form, as distinguished from its subsequent registration under Chapter III, would be of no legal effect and significance and in such a case, the earlier marriage duly solemnised in some other form would continue to be valid and effective as before. It was also held that in case of existence of an earlier marriage, a purported solemnisation of the marriage between the parties under Chapter II of the Act would be entirely an exercise in futility and that the earlier marriage celebrated under the Hindu rites would be the only marriage for consideration.
3. Anupam Das v. Mampi Das, AIR 2008 Gauhati 3
The marriage between the parties was solemnised and registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The marriage was again solemnised at a temple according to Hindu rites. The wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolving her marriage by a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty. The husband raised a contention that when the marriage had been solemnised and duly registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, the trial court had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the divorce petition filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Gauhati High Court noticed that the act of "cruelty" is one of the grounds for dissolving a marriage by a decree of divorce which is common to both Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act and that a wrong label given to the petition for divorce or a wrong provision of law quoted will not affect the power of the trial court . However, the Court directed the trial court to proceed with the divorce petition in accordance with the provisions the Special Marriage Act and not under the Hindu Marriage Act. In other words, the Gauhati High Court accepted the contention of the husband that the valid marriage was the one solemnised under the Special Marriage Act and not the subsequent marriage solemnised as per Hindu rites.
4. Suman Kundra v. Sanjeev Kundra, AIR 2015 Delhi 124
The husband filed a petition against the wife for grant of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The parties were Hindus. They had got married on 29.10.1986 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage, though a love marriage, could not continue for very long and the relationship soured. As a consequence, the marriage was got dissolved by a decree of divorce on 02.06.1988. After the decree of divorce having been passed, the parties were drawn against each other once again and they decided to get re-married for a second time. On 03.05.1990, their marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. Again the parties could not reconcile their inherent differences. On 21.07.2005, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife then filed an application seeking dismissal of the petition for divorce on the ground that the marriage had taken place under the Special Marriage Act and the divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act was not maintainable. The trial court dismissed the application filed by the wife by holding that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition for divorce under both enactments and cruelty, being a ground for divorce under both enactments, there was cause of action for the petition for divorce. The Delhi High Court considered the question whether a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be dismissed merely on the premise that the same ought to have been filed under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act. The Delhi High Court held that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the divorce petition as the trial judge under the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the Special Marriage Act is a District Judge. It was held that there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction of the forum to deal with the divorce petition. It was further held that persons who had got married under the Special Marriage Act cannot be given divorce in a petition for divorce filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Court noticed that the objection with regard to wrong provision is a matter ought to be raised at the earliest stage and if it is not so done, it could be taken as an objection having been waived by the party.
5. Sandhya Gupta v. Saibal Prasad, II (1999) DMC 756
The marriage was first registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Thereafter it was solemnised according to Hindu custom and rites. The petition for divorce was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty of the spouse. It was contended that since the marriage being registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 at the first instance, the petition for divorce could only be filed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Orissa High Court held that the Judge, Family Court is vested with the powers to decide the matrimonial matters both under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and therefore, the issue does not relate to jurisdiction of the court, but the applicability of the law to the case. It was held that in either case, a petition for dissolution of marriage is maintainable before the Judge, Family Court on the ground of cruelty and, therefore, it is not a case, where the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and pass a decree, but the question is whether the petition was to be presented under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Orissa High Court held that filing of a petition mistakenly under a wrong provision of law or giving a wrong nomenclature would not oust the jurisdiction of the court, if the relief sought in the petition can be granted otherwise under some other provision of law. It was held that if the court was vested with the power to deal with the application and grant relief, only because the application or petition has been filed under a misconception quoting a wrong provision of law, a party cannot be non-suited. The Court further held that the contention of the appellant to the effect that the petition was not maintainable and as such the decree is a nullity, has to be rejected. It was held that in any event, a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty is available to either party to the marriage both under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as Section 27(ii) of the Special Marriage Act and the Judge, Family Court in both the cases had the jurisdiction to decide the matter and therefore, the hypertechnical view that the petition having been filed under a wrong provision of law and entertained by the court will vitiate the proceeding, cannot be accepted.
6. Stephen Joshus v. J.D. Kapoor, 58 (1995) DLT 57
The parties were Christians who had been married to each other under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. A joint petition was preferred by them under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the marriage was solemnised under the Christian Marriage Act whereas divorce had been sought under the Special Marriage Act and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. The Delhi High Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act confers jurisdiction upon the District Court to grant a decree, declaring the marriage to be dissolved only on satisfaction that the marriage has been solemnised under that Act and therefore, upheld the dismissal of the petition by the lower court.
7. Mohanraj v. Violet Chandra: ILR 1992 Karnataka 846
The husband filed a petition for divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The parties were Christians whose marriage was solemnised under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 according to the Christian rites in a church. The wife contended that the marriage being one solemnised under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and not under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 the petition for divorce was not maintainable. The Karnataka High Court held that a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 could be filed only when the marriage is either solemnised or deemed to have been solemnised under that Act and therefore, upheld the contention of the wife.
8. Aulvin v. Chandrawati, AIR 1974 All 278
The husband filed a petition for divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act. The parties were admittedly Christians and they were married in a Christian church according to Christian rites. The wife contended that since the parties were Christians and had been married under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the petition for divorce should have been filed under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 and the petition filed under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act was not maintainable. The Allahabad High Court held that the petition for divorce presented under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was not maintainable since the marriage between the parties was neither solemnised nor registered under that Act.
9. Prakash Martin Tegur v. Joyce Samuel, ILR 2013 Karnataka 793
The parties were Christians and their marriage was solemnized as per the Christian rites and it was registered under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. A joint petition for divorce was filed by the parties under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Karnataka High Court held that when the parties are Christians and their marriage has been solemnized as per the Christian rites and registered under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, petition filed invoking the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of their marriage was not maintainable.
10. Dr. Kiran Kumar v. Dr. Bini Marim Chandi, Mat. Appeal No. 1017 of 2017
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which was solemnised in the church is not valid and that the marriage solemnised under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 would prevail over it. If only the marriage conducted between the parties in the church was valid, the solemnisation of the marriage under Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 would have been an exercise in futility. Therefore, there can be no doubt with regard to the fact that the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is maintainable. View Judgment
Comments
Post a Comment