The High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that a marriage performed in contravention of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is void ab initio (invalid from the start) if the previous spouse of a party is living at the time of the marriage. The Court clarified that a customary “Chudi” marriage cannot validate a union that is otherwise void under statutory law, nor can revenue entries alone create substantive property rights.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru allowed the Second Appeal filed by the daughter of the deceased landholder, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court which had erroneously upheld the validity of the second marriage based on customary practices and revenue records.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertained to the agricultural land of late Sagnuram, situated at Village Dhaneli. Sagnuram’s first wife, Nikmi Bai, passed away leaving behind a daughter, Smt. Sooraj Bai (the Appellant/Defendant No.1).
It was alleged that about 37 years prior to the suit, Sagnuram brought Gwalin Bai, a widow, as his wife through the “Chudi” custom. The plaintiffs, Smt. Hiran Bai and Smt. Sukhiya Bai, claimed to be the daughters of Gwalin Bai and Sagnuram. Following the deaths of Sagnuram (1987) and Gwalin Bai (1988), the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title, partition, and possession of the property, claiming to be legal heirs.
The Appellant, Sooraj Bai, contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiffs were not the daughters of Sagnuram but were born to Gwalin Bai from her previous relationships. She pleaded that Gwalin Bai had a living husband at the time of her alleged association with Sagnuram, and thus, no valid marriage existed.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove a valid marriage. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that the “Chudi” marriage was valid and the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the property. Aggrieved by this, Sooraj Bai approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant (Defendant): Senior Advocate Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, appearing for the Appellant, argued that the First Appellate Court committed a serious error in recognizing Gwalin Bai as a legally wedded wife. He submitted that:
- Gwalin Bai’s previous husband was alive at the time of the alleged “Chudi” marriage with Sagnuram.
- There was no evidence of a valid divorce from the first husband.
- A customary marriage cannot override the prohibition against bigamy under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Revenue entries do not confer title in the absence of a valid marriage.
The Respondents (Plaintiffs): Counsel for the Respondents supported the First Appellate Court’s judgment, arguing that Sagnuram had solemnized the marriage in accordance with social customs (Chudi) and a community feast was held. They contended that since Gwalin Bai lived with Sagnuram as his wife until his death, the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to his property.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court framed the substantial question of law as: “Whether the lower Appellate Court was not justified in holding that Gwalin Bai was legally wedded wife of Sagnuram and the finding in this regard is perverse?”
1. Admission of Subsisting Marriage: The Court heavily relied on the testimony of Plaintiff No.1 (PW-1), Hiran Bai. In her cross-examination, she categorically admitted that “at the time when Sagnuram allegedly performed the ‘Chudi’ marriage with her mother Gwalin Bai, the first husband of Gwalin Bai was alive.” She further admitted having no knowledge of any divorce.
2. Legal Position on Void Marriages: Justice Guru referred to Section 5(i) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which stipulate that a marriage is null and void if either party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.
The Court observed:
“Mere assertion of a ‘Chudi’ marriage or evidence of cohabitation cannot convert a marriage, which is otherwise void under law, into a valid one.”
3. Reliance on Precedents: The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr. (1988), which held that a marriage in contravention of Section 5(i) is a complete nullity and requires no decree of nullity to be ignored.
Regarding the burden of proof for customs, the Court referred to Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and Others (2020) and the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Sushma v. Rattan Deep and Anr. (2025), reiterating that the burden lies heavily on the party asserting a custom that derogates from statutory law.
4. Perversity of the First Appellate Court’s Finding: The High Court criticized the First Appellate Court for ignoring the material admission regarding the living first spouse. The Judge noted:
“The First Appellate Court has relied primarily upon general statements regarding customary practice and revenue records, without recording any specific finding about the existence, recognition, and legal validity of such customary marriage… Revenue records, being primarily administrative or fiscal in nature, cannot confer title or override substantive provisions of Hindu law.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, answering the substantial question of law in favor of the Appellant.
The Court held:
“In view of the conditions enumerated in Sections 5 (i) & 11 of the Act, 1955, it is held that since the first husband of Gwalin Bai was alive… the said subsequent marriage is not acceptable under the eyes of law and the same is a void marriage.”
Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Balod, were set aside, and the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit was affirmed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Sooraj Bai v. Smt. Hiran Bai & Ors.
- Case Number: SA No. 116 of 2008
- Coram: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
- Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivangi Agrawal
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Virendra Soni with Mr. Ankush Soni; Mr. Santosh Soni (Govt. Advocate)
