LILA GUPTA Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting and to some extent hitherto unexplored question under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, arises in this group of six appeals by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. Appellant in all the appeals is the same person and a common question of law is raised in all these appeals and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) One Rajendra Kumar whose widow appellant Smt. Lila Gupta claims to be, had contracted a marriage with one Sarla Gupta. Both Rajendra Kumar and Sarla Gupta filed suit against each other praying for a decree of divorce. These suits ended in a decree of divorce on April 8, 1963. Soon thereafter, on May 25, 1963, Rajendra Kumar contracted second marriage with appellant Smt. Lila Gupta. Unfortunately, Rajendra Kumar expired on May 7, 1965. Disputes arose in consolidation proceedings between the appellant claiming as widow of deceased Rajendra Kumar and respondents who are brothers and brother's sons of Rajendra Kumar about succession to the Bhumidhari rights in respect of certain plots of land enjoyed by Rajendra Kumar in his lifetime, the latter challenging the status of the appellant to be the widow of Rajendra Kumar on the ground that her marriage with Rejendra Kumar was void having been contracted in violation of the provision contained in the proviso to S. 15 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short). The final authority Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the claim of the appellant and this decision was challenged by the respondents in six petitions filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad. The learned single Judge before whom these petitions came up for hearing was of the opinion that the marriage of Rajendra Kumar with the present appellant on May 25, 1963, being in contravention of the proviso to S. 15 was null and void, and accordingly allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. The appellant preferred six different appeals under the Letters Patent. The Division Bench dismissed these appeals and confirmed the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench granted certificate under Art. 133 (1) (c) to the present appellant and that is how these six appeals have come up before us.

(3.) Even though the appeals were argued on a wider canvas, the short and narrow question which would go to the root of the matter is: Whether a marriage contracted in contravention of or violation of the proviso to S. 15 of the Act is void or merely invalid not affecting the core of marriage and the parties are subject to a binding tie of wedlock flowing from he marriage