Krishnaveni Rai
V.
Pankaj Rai
FACTS
The Appellant (Krishnaveni Rai) married Arvind chenjee in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and customs on 11-08-1989 as mentioned under Hindu Marriage Act, but the marriage didn’t last and it was dissolved on 28-06-2005 by the order passed by the Family Court. In August, 2006 the appellant filled an application against the order passed by the court on dissolution of marriage, after the expiration of limitation period. The court accepted the delay but appellant withdrew the same. During this time, Arvind Chenjee got married to another person Shipra Chenjee and the appellant got married to respondent no.1. Unfortunately, the appellant’s marriage with respondent no.1 did not last long. The appellant alleged that respondent no.1 attempted cruelty, harassment against her and even threw her out of her matrimonial home. On these allegations appellant filed a complaint under Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 498A (Cruelty) and 500 (Defamation) of IPC, 1860 against the Respondent no.1. The appellant also filed a petition U/S 125 of Cr.P.C in family court, claiming maintenance on the ground that she was unable to maintain herself as she had no source of income. Appellant also filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
On the other hand, the respondent had filed a suit for declaration for nullity of marriage with the appellant as the marriage was solemnized during the pendency of an appeal of the decree of the dissolution of marriage from her first husband. The main question in this appeal is, whether the Appellant could have been denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the marriage of Krishnanveni Rai with the Respondent No.1 was a null and void marriage, because the marriage had taken place while an appeal filed by the Appellant against the decree of dissolution of marriage with her first husband was still pending in the court. In simple terms, is a second marriage performed during the pendency of an appeal from a decree of divorce a null or void marriage
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled to get maintenance from respondent no. 1. The Hindu Marriage Act is applicable only if the appeal is filled within the limitation period. So, the marriage between Appellant’s ex husband and Shipra Chenjee in 2006 was a valid marriage in law and a marriage contracted during the pendency of the appeal from a decree of divorce is not void ab intio.