The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that if a party's former spouse is still alive at the time of the marriage, a marriage performed in violation of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is void ab initio, or invalid from the beginning. The Court made it clear that revenue entries by themselves cannot establish substantive property rights, nor can a customary "Chudi" marriage legalize a relationship that is otherwise illegitimate under statute law.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

permitted the daughter of the dead landholder to file a Second Appeal, overturning the First Appellate Court's decision to incorrectly uphold the validity of the second marriage based on revenue records and customary norms.

Background of the Case

The agricultural land in Village Dhaneli that belonged to the late Sagnuram was the subject of the dispute. Smt. Sooraj Bai (the Appellant/Defendant No.1) is the daughter of Sagnuram's first wife, Nikmi Bai, who died.

According to the "Chudi" custom, Sagnuram allegedly married a widow named Gwalin Bai some 37 years before the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, Smt. Hiran Bai and Smt. Sukhiya Bai, asserted that they were Gwalin Bai and Sagnuram's daughters. Claiming to be legitimate heirs, the plaintiffs requested a declaration of title, partition, and possession of the property after Sagnuram (1987) and Gwalin Bai (1988) passed away.

Sooraj Bai, the appellant, challenged the lawsuit, claiming that the plaintiffs were born to Gwalin Bai from her prior relationships rather than Sagnuram's daughters. She argued that there was no lawful marriage because Gwalin Bai had a living husband at the time of her purported relationship with Sagnuram.

Due to the plaintiffs' inability to establish a lawful marriage, the Trial Court rejected the lawsuit. The First Appellate Court, however, overturned this finding, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a portion of the property and that the "Chudi" marriage was lawful. Sooraj Bai was upset about this and went to 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:

. At the time of the purported "Chudi" marriage with Sagnuram, Gwalin Bai's former spouse was still living.
. There was no proof that the first husband's divorce was lawful.
.The Hindu Marriage Act's ban on bigamy cannot be overridden by a customary marriage.
.In the absence of a lawful marriage, revenue entries do not grant title.

The Respondents (Plaintiffs): The Respondents' attorney defended the First Appellate Court's ruling, claiming that a communal feast was held and that Sagnuram had performed the marriage ceremony in compliance with social conventions (Chudi). They argued that the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit Gwalin Bai's property because he lived with Sagnuram as his wife until his death.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

"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" is how the High Court phrased the significant legal question.

1. Admission of Subsisting Marriage: Plaintiff No. 1 (PW-1), Hiran Bai's evidence was a major source of support for the Court. She firmly acknowledged during her cross-examination that "the first husband of Gwalin Bai was alive at the time when Sagnuram allegedly performed the 'Chudi' marriage with her mother Gwalin Bai."  She also said that she was unaware of any divorces.

2. Legal Position on Void Marriages: The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955's Sections 5(i) and 11, which state that a marriage is void if either party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage, were cited by Justice Guru.

The Court observed:

"A marriage that is otherwise void under law cannot be made valid by merely claiming a "Chudi" marriage or providing proof of cohabitation."

3. Reliance on Precedents: The ruling referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr. (1988), which maintained that a marriage that violates Section 5(i) is wholly void and does not need to be disregarded.

The Delhi High Court's decision in Sushma v. Rattan Deep and Anr. (2025) and Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar and Others (2020) were cited by the Court in relation to the burden of proof for customs, emphasizing that the burden is primarily on the party claiming a custom that deviates from statutory law.
 

4. Perversity of the First Appellate Court's Conclusion: The High Court chastised the First Appellate Court for disregarding the significant admission pertaining to the surviving first husband. The judge observed:

"The First Appellate Court has not recorded any specific findings about the existence, recognition, and legal validity of such customary marriage, instead relying mostly on broad remarks regarding revenue records and customary practice. Revenue records cannot grant title or supersede substantive principles of Hindu law because they are essentially administrative or fiscal in nature.

Decision

The High Court granted the Second Appeal, resolving the significant legal issue in the appellant's favor.

The Court held:

"Considering the requirements listed in Sections 5 (i) and 11 of the Act, 1955, it is held that since Gwalin Bai's first husband was still alive, the said subsequent marriage is not acceptable under the eyes of the law and the same is a void marriage."

As a result, the Additional District Judge Balod's judgment and decree dated January 29, 2005, were overturned, and the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit was upheld.

Case Details
 

Case Title: Smt. Sooraj Bai v. Smt. Hiran Bai & Ors.
Case Number: SA No. 116 of 2008