DAYAL SINGH Vs. BHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER a marriage between the parties had been annulled on the wife's petition under Section 11 read with clause (1) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the husband had a spouse living at the time of the said marriage, the lady aggrieved (respondent in this appeal) made an application for permanent alimony and maintenance under section 25 of the Act. She has been granted a maintenance allowance of Rs. 25/per month by the court of first instance. The offending or the offended male has come in appeal to this Court.

(2.) THERE is no dispute as regards the rate or quantum of the maintenance allowance and considering the high prices prevailing these days, this allowance would hardly enable the respondent to subsist on starvation level. The only grievance made by the appellant, therefore, is that the marriage was void ipso jure, from this very inception and that the respondent had never acquired the status of a wife to give her the right to make an application under Section 25 of the Act.

(3.) THE parties had lived together as husband and wife for more than a year after the mock marriage or the sham ceremony and no children had fortunately been born from the wedlock. When the respondent came to know that the appellant was already married and that his wife was alive, she promptly applied for the annulment of the marriage. On the material now before me, it is not possible to say how far the appellant had been held responsible for any deception or suppression of material facts from the respondent before she was induced to go through that sham ceremony or mock marriage. Even if the respondent could be said to have gone through a marriage ceremony with full knowledge about the appellant's live wife, it is obvious that she has been robbed of her maidenhood and the fact that she had promptly asked for the annulment of this mock marriage and that she was granted relief by the court may suggest that she was not trying to take advantage of her own wrong or disability within the meaning of S. 23 (1) (a) of the Act.