The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that a subsequent judicial pronouncement by a competent court does not constitute a valid reason to recall an earlier order passed on the basis of a mutual compromise between litigating parties. The court rejected an application seeking the recall of its January 9, 2025 order, which had quashed criminal proceedings following a settlement in a matrimonial dispute.
The division bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, held that the applicant was free to seek appropriate legal recourse against the new family court judgment but could not use it to reopen the settled writ petition.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by a husband and others. On January 9, 2025, a coordinate bench of the High Court had allowed this petition, quashing an FIR under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392, and 354 of the I.P.C., along with all consequential proceedings.
This decision was based on a compromise deed dated February 17, 2024, executed between the petitioner-husband and the informant-wife. The compromise, which was duly verified by the Senior Registrar of the court, stated that the parties had amicably settled their disputes and agreed to withdraw all cases filed against each other.
Arguments for Recalling the Order
The wife filed an application on May 27, 2025, seeking a recall of the High Court’s January 9 order. Her counsel argued that a subsequent development had frustrated the purpose of the original compromise.
The applicant pointed to a judgment dated May 6, 2025, by the Additional Principal Judge-VI, Family Court, Lucknow. This judgment dismissed a suit filed by the husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which sought to declare his marriage to the wife null and void.
The applicant contended that she had, in good faith, withdrawn her own divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as per the compromise. However, with the dismissal of the husband’s petition for annulment, her marital status had fallen into a “dilemma,” thereby defeating the spirit of the settlement.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court bench noted the uncontroverted facts of the case:
- The wife had previously married another man on July 6, 2013, after converting to Islam.
- She married the petitioner-husband according to Hindu rites on June 28, 2020.
- A decree of divorce from her first husband was granted on January 19, 2021, which was after her marriage to the petitioner-husband.
The court observed, “On a pointed query as to how marriage could have taken place in accordance with the Hindu methodology, between the persons with different religion, neither the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties nor the parties themselves could give any satisfactory reply.”
While refraining from delving into the factual matrix of the marriage’s validity, the court discussed the settled law on void marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It cited Section 11, read with Section 5(i), which mandates that for a valid Hindu marriage, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. A marriage contravening this condition is void ipso jure (from its very inception).
The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Deoki Panjhiyara versus Shahshi Bhushan Narayan Azad & Another (2013): This case reaffirmed that marriages contravening Section 5(i) are null and void.
- Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav versus Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (1988): The Apex Court held that a marriage covered by Section 11 is void from its inception and does not require a formal declaration of nullity.
- M. M. Malhotra versus Union of India and others (2005): Reiterated the view in Yamunabai, stating that such marriages “have to be ignored as not existing in law at all.”
- A. Subash Babu versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (2011): The Supreme Court observed that while a formal declaration under Section 11 is not mandatory, it is the “prudent” course for the purpose of record.
The High Court emphasized that the declaration of marital status can only be made by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding.
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the bench found no merit in the recall application. Justice Rizvi, writing for the bench, stated:
“Taking into consideration the contentions raised by the Opposite Party No.4 / Applicant herein… we find no good ground warranting this Court to interfere with the said Order dated 09.01.2025, merely on the premise of some subsequent development, that too, a judicial pronouncement dated 06.05.2025 rendered by a competent Court of law.”
The court rejected the application, consigning it to the record. It clarified that if the parties are aggrieved by the Family Court’s judgment of May 6, 2025, they are at liberty “to avail appropriate legal recourse in respect of the same in the manner as prescribed under law.”
