Reportable in The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) No. 7903 of 2019)
Reportable in The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) No. 7903 of 2019)
Reportable in The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) No. 7903 of 2019)
REPORTABLE
versus
JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
Criminal Revision Case No. 2587 of 2017 filed by the Appellant under
Digitally signed by
Cr.P.C. for maintenance, on the purported ground that the marriage
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2020.02.20
16:09:23 IST
Reason:
the Appellant with the said Arvind Chenjee was, however, dissolved
limitation, the Appellant filed an appeal against the said order dated
the decree of divorce was, from the inception, infructuous. The appeal
with the said Arvind Chenjee was dissolved and long 8 years after the
Respondent No.1
work. The Appellant has alleged that the Respondent No.1 subjected
3
the Appellant to harassment and cruelty and even threw her out of
at the Banjara Hills Police Station, under Sections 406, 498A and 500
10. Claiming that she did not have any independent source of
income, the Appellant filed an application being M.C. No. 152 of 2015
11. The Respondent No.1, on the other hand, filed a suit being O.P.
the ground that the marriage had been solemnized during the
application u/s 239 for Cr.P.C for discharge, from the proceedings
dated 15.3.2017.
406, 498A and 500 of the IPC. The Appellant contends that the order
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Fast Track Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast
18. The Appellant filed a Criminal Revision Petition being Crl. R.P.
the order dated 23.1.2018 discharging the Respondent No.1 from the
proceeding under Sections 406, 498A and 500 of the IPC and also
made an application being I.A. No.8 of 2019 for suspension of the said
2017 before the High Court challenging the order dated 7.8.2017
Cr.P.C.
No.1, on the other hand, filed a petition under Section 482 of the
Sections 406, 498A and 506 of the IPC. By an order dated 9.4.2019
the said criminal proceedings were quashed on the ground that the
the appellant’s marriage with her first husband, was null and void.
of 2017 filed by the Appellant in the Court of the 1st Additional Family
6
Judge, Hyderabad in O.P. No. 475 of 2015 being the pending suit of
to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of the application, that is,
Family Court has been dismissed by a Single Bench of the High Court
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Fast Track Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast
the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was also dismissed by
Appellant and the Respondent No.1 had got married as per prevailing
125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that her marriage with the
Respondent No.1 was a nullity, just because the marriage had taken
following conditions:-
(iii) The parties to the marriage are of requisite age, that is,
the bridegroom should have completed 21 years of age
and the bride 18 years of age, at the time of marriage
[Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act];
null and void and may on a petition presented by either party thereto,
contravenes any of the conditions in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of the
Section 5.
Act, that is, where either party or both have a spouse living at the
Act does not render the marriage null and void. In such a case, the
marriage or the party who could not have validly consented to the
marriage.
10
decree, or if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has
been presented but the same has been dismissed, it shall be lawful
for either party to the marriage to marry again. Had it been the
so.
provide protection to the person who had filed an appeal against the
34. In any case, the bar of Section 15 is not at all attracted in the
facts and circumstances of this case, where the appeal from the
decree of divorce had been filed almost a year after expiry of the
against the decree, or even if there is such a right to appeal, the time
the appeal has been presented but has been dismissed. In this case
limitation.
35. The bar, if any, under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act
36. As observed above, the appeal was infructuous for all practical
37. It could never have been the legislative intent that a marriage
validly contracted after the divorce and after expiry of the period of
with the view of this Court in Leela Gupta (supra) that the effect of
marriage for a certain period is not to nullify the divorce and continue
Hindu Marriage Act. We need not go into this question in view of our
from a decree is not ab initio void, and certainly not when such an
39. The judgment and order under appeal confirming the order
40. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal and the
Cr.P.C., or in the suit being O.P. No. 475 of 2015. The Respondent
Court/Family Court.
.................................J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
.................................J.
[M.R. SHAH]
FEBRUARY 19, 2020;
NEW DELHI.