Court proposes, HC disposes, strikes off married man’s second marriage
Times of India | 20 April 2025
123 Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday scrapped a Siliguri trial court order and struck off a marriage registrar's licence after it found that a man remarried under the Hindu Marriage Act 1954 while his divorce suit was pending. The HC also faulted the trial court for not nullifying the second marriage despite the woman seeking action against her husband for suppressing his pending divorce suit while marrying her.
A woman had approached the Calcutta HC after her plea to call the marriage void was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that the husband's divorce suit from his previous marriage was still going on. The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar held: "The trial judge acted with palpable illegality in refusing to grant a decree declaring the marriage between the present parties to be a nullity." The bench directed a Siliguri marriage registrar to strike off the marriage registration from the marriage register.
The couple got married on Dec 1, 2021, following Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was registered under Section 13 of 1954 Act on June 7, 2022. The marriage happened with the husband allegedly suppressing his previous marriage that had been solemnized on Nov 8, 2018. The woman claimed this was blatant deception. She had also submitted all the documents of her husband's 2019 marriage, which was still valid, in court.
"Even if the husband was successful in obtaining a divorce decree against his previous wife, the same would not purge the guilt of the husband suppressing his previous marriage to the appellant at the time of their wedding," the HC division bench held.
"As such, it was clearly proved by the appellant in the trial court that at least between Nov 8, 2018, that is, the date of the admitted previous marriage of the respondent/husband, and the date of the judgment impugned herein, the said marriage was subsisting, as the previous suit of the husband seeking divorce was still pending," the division bench observed.