Karnataka High Court
Laxmibai W/O Ningappa Hadapad vs Anasuya W/O Ningappa Hadapad on 30 January, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 KARNATAKA 24, (2015) 1 MARRILJ 635, (2013) ILR (KANT) 529, (2013) 2 DMC 166, (2013) 2 KANT LJ 233, (2013) 3 KCCR 2123
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT GULBARGA
U iltri tw in' 1 da Cit .Luaaa 2u I.)
TF FOR"
lBS HON BLE MR.JUSflCE N KUMAR
itiNcl( .O
BE 1W EF
Laxinzhai ,'n Nhuçippa ITadap d
pr: 63 cc us 0i : IIev%t-h 1d an 1.
? 'c s
'q: MucIdc,i'i '1
) si. j4jy pi ic- iC it
"-si Si I i.' r.a; -uL'.a r. 'tIIi'i11i \c r
t )fl
kA .
Ii• id
'a... U. C 14 4. .1
\.i..'It uin
'.
4 ; .''t
'1 1
I ii ttr I 'i I
I 1',
" •jJ• . j. •
a. .
Ii •. • ,. . .: ' :"
ii 1 ii
r '. I 't '1 .)
, II
it
• .
,.. •1 , ... .
... I • .. .
V
2
lbS ('RI' 0
m R A ha nrdtfl titi" tbt (oil) t
the
oaD
n
r' the 44tCk1'hl' e bt°' i ctt1C 4
tilt
'
sed In the Inal ( iieitbtt the suit
1% hIt undtt %ctlO
ii 9 ol the cod' of "
1
n
'
0 ut eciurt por tht
the .
2. car the piirpO
' (011vetiifle UK parlW" ar
rtttrred Ir' a' ,beY 5C refe
ned t0kutllt niigtfl' Mitt
oh 3
t
7 Ib0
l 0B 1' fflel In %itJ bd
N 4a1)VA 401 J r, .;anV' jj' x w'tt ot sit
wil" telS. cr tb dan n tI't ', flit ptolfltltf #9
tao' b
%q
4 1fl .#fllt J I'%'' si' a'
ii dl y IaU' 21i wIdPa* it' uC LX l b
1 1
\
"a 4 flRO 1w b
'
( i-n lit
..b' '
4
W end p •.
it( '1 ' tlia'' lit
'a
3
tin t
1 6 11.2007 rntC%tttt
fted
ttzc re'"" tiled ib suit t
n t padtttOn and ai ate
ci he half share in in' cant .chtd'ttt o
0 pt
1
h iCb are mote desCttl)ed in paragFaPu* n
1
t 2
i of the
plaint n ilit 4
q CUfl that both the 1
1dor" base inbedttd 1*'
etate equa!
3 Sfter entt ot sunUttOh
l" the defen1tt tiled bet
wtittCfl st tteiU't Sb' that age ol the plamEiff n
sho't 4% 13 ycat. it we'D' that tbt piainttff' born a
t fte
1956 nindu 4
s
0 ucc
) n flt. tthtfll0
' flit cc'EId ii'fe
.'flflt rla'f a p.opet of I e dec( ascd 1
N
W
li aPI
P flinttO"
,ili 'she I l i1,n4U
S hhtU t ,nda'
j nC anUt'" tbt 0
q .tSdOf C
l Mn"
i1
nt astc
6. C cuit fr$gd te t ,i,oCh1 1" ts%
ft 't' 1 iii .S .41
a t I • .rt I'
•
a
n C
-- . 2
• I
4
SY' 9
p ar.' 0
f tht S
iitC
the 1" cUt'
4. t
M. (coil1
pWfl
t
in what dccitC
7. 140 dht* tht mthTh the
4buhtt of
gtt %aS trea& 1
i
u ua1
t .' Th the coUl1
fat the wacb
tttt oP pi
S 'be 1
t st.' C •gflt n
11e "
0
S eth 10 j' of ti
Sd' 'e&t)fltt
'
'
jfl0 e iFf SiOC I Pb" r.JC. hi .'
stdO toutt'1t1 u.%L uEe , at • w'tt th' itt
•
aS a let . e
tie.' 1
. t1
ø .1
4 rbpt
tiLt ,ttt
l.' flr I'R at''
Si)-- .4ihhh
l
\a, 0
' :e .t1cI l(t44b1 t
b
1 '
'
C I. ' 1
I t I'• ' _t -. is . V. • •
fl
9 The leat tied riJi in'.rl irn the petitioner
Si lii sb idhan I Mihiati ulir thic irnpiçnt I mdc
contend'. no douhit unclet Rule ! of Scntpn IA ot tb, pt t f
"ated 'f there arc rnre ? icows 'han mc. 'her
1 ill the 'udows
1p$t'lh)ei voiiltj bc eiflltfrd it) one %haie. In other words on the
It the Successicn lit cane into force if thcrc an- t%o %lvcs
It the husband dies. both the widow% would 'ake one %hare
The aid pi ) isbn h3d tic application tr i CrbOfl claiming t
lit the second wile, after romitig into force of the Act beennnnc
low 1W efor lie ub its Ic a ennc t' h plc ri do
i I 'h v itt acfi n for filItcs the iii' 1 1 p., titIc. 1 ifl(
th-i e'or' 'lie u'i is 1' thu 1w c'krl4%%e I
'c i tra 'III • •. o t'ie! fur 'Jjw . --j.i fl'&ti
't 1 i , I ) r
1 _.i 'a
'I 'a 'a ' g. rj p fl" • s •' .'i •t'
1. 1
I I
6
5 2 £ 1 1 c
Id) ir1
11 Ii 1 ai i iagc i anscarali
c i cc r c iii In law e ogi we I eight lomis of mairiago
I lowe tr ogislation )f I tics rol'ituig U Hindu Marriage Leg en
r ho voc 1 29 ii it he bc i <uucndcd id ci lay
r oted i r ictoti i Aftc 1 ilcpc. krcc to Hi id
Mi a c \ t 3) (Ii c2 of ei ainot enacto by
i la rich to at 1 1 M to
i r C
1 0
• ii) at the flint at the' marrlaae. neither in arty
.'z' :s !r'cq"zi'lc n! •jirtiq a rthd
in ft n c"flISccattc'flC'e' ed uns(,lLi,(lnecs
oJ mind. a,
'b though "ap2bk "I qu.'nq i 'aWL
onsent, has been sufjennq from
mental dtsordc r of such a kind or to
such an evtt'nI as to be unfit 'r
marriage and the procreation C?'
chdrhcn: or
nas beer suo,e t rc CUT cr L cwacks
ot nsa'dry.
tisi) he N iclcgrinm iiac . tnnj;ieied the 'age A
:tit'e'ny One tj ur'n and the brirk. tilt' aqe
(4 ','(tIiiTe--fl Will! 'I (U filL' ' a' 'l 't'
(iliac
1) 11 C
hibi allot W1eC (US
'11 •SSUOt j'F't'•'li'e'a •( d'. 7
J ' _) g.pj; f
(4g. fIii4(.% i Cc' ''1
•:) I', •.n;gr • •
hc.s £
r
• C
11 Void marnages z u oar zayc
daft ft A
an stud in oj pc o
t cit d ycthc janj it ttocigaaistthc thc
nnrli ft ( rInu1nrt hi ci tnt ci ntUjJij if ii
contract cit any on I tht onditi ci spc ifa d a
lau.scs ti a and ft of Scctnr 5
tctc ttcA cit
17 Punishment of btgamg
yb cci u f
i c th
c It! 1-
t
0
1'I r
I
U
Inc 'z ICIlY? ttThi'J tutu e \1G1ld in S('L'Cli JIC(iTs (111(1
IR 11 lice )c '!ciUI r
F \ctutlu!' I IllS St'CitOT (1(55 (lOt C1eT7'I (0
aly p( i S( a [lilt SC inarreyt tstlz sift It httsburtd it
ift ha. I ce a de lawn i i by Court J
(orlzpc'tenijarisdzc Lion.
nec iv qrii' pc'son tiThe ennI(1ft5s a trlallTiaQ(
dtiru'zg the ltf of a forrik' ittistintici vi wife iI 511Gb
ntshand it [r)f( at the it ac If th sabsequc at
araaqc shall hacc xer itt z ally sbscrd )m
such T in Thr a spacc se' 'en arc. at I
cOral r iaru beer hea; a bt sW Th i2t 55(17? (4S
rc ,r?u at z'e tt'tthirt II f/li 1771 ft lstoi Ijejd tlw J4 'TS'Bt
C )?l! ill 'wa lft r;'
[ft!i SthSG
1 s 1(tiJt Si tilt hf' ia
nrc o T9( I I' tar nthc s i
( € S
I 101' Jo. w (1111€ t UI,: ti I:
ii)'. j H
495 Same offence with concealment of'
rrinfjr from N' 'n t whrr
mar g I ac d o
j(
( €11 ;? > '
.1' 1 t tr t
j 1
'
I
C 10
iraq 'X cc I Ic ten jea a ird shall also be lrahfr 0
fzne.
If A Cc chnç ,f th aforc said pi ox isions rnakt s it clear
that after the passing of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 one of
the conditions for llindn Marriage is neither
PY should have
a poust' living at the Lime of the marriage. it' the said
eondftion js not fulfilled, there is no marriage in the eve of law
If i-s a mandafory requireinenl under clause (iJ of Section 5 of
he Ac I. Such x marnade shall he null and xotd tc is clear
01 C icu I f he ke foithedatof hemariaçe ither
ar y na I iband i h I r Ph es an 1 fen t
in let sc Li H 404 iitl
495 If Pt It ii ii ' C it ' it 9 n
c-lit nrc W pid,habie With monsot tnent of enht c dos rtpdctt
for a lc-rm whir ii 'nax exlend 10 5-0fl veari arid halI also he
a -ii it 5ri- If do c1d ci 15 niO 1- ci 0 (1 11(0 iliac ilit
OrUzt o. cit h I h0 rffe
c
1 e i_ flI1lt ehsoc tvih
Ot 1 i. ci c File ip c-i I I it ifl t
Ii I m \
S I to (I
V th oar cit I i Mr Ac r1c
'I j,s''O'', t1x?i4bc
c Itiuci ii I o
-
,- t i - I a ii In ol the dindu M gfla3t ' hk11 %a %ubsutt ad hi t n id t916 d 1cc utd that nt thMm the ulafltflt lM null and oid Lifl Stcti°E' i. anY child ,ucb maw' iWo 1 v t' ha' c W"
a4 11 fl)aW id btCfl" %hafl he leØtLm' whetbCl sULb child is born bLt0i! ,r tei thu eounnt (MfleWt t1'°' Ga MartIS LaW% 'titl Ftt. i976 and cthe1 i not a f nuWl) ' of that I4 C flLUTL undeR tht% t and wbet1" or not tb' t held to be tid oe thai' uP a ptUU0" ttndtt thiS ftc ttdLdt" boEli G.tt ot ba no rotc to play UI the of this offal" fliC are r1t1 ad hi ueatb* .be a lb Jnld' hi tYiC ntJk' itt oh itt pearl" ' at tin" b1CkvUu uh1 t l'" to fr 70' j"0fl c•' fln'd" 5t4 flt0t' N' b1 'p rl ,iiactt.l . sstii flex I' j4j'b ca ,n$tct fri Vt' a cpa t 1 n itU' ittO 4ft V. ,tI Ufl' ' t in 1 J 4t"' iiE('" thE tns (' idbJh I 1'' •tj tr a • 1 t has an a' it'thb o I ha' \cU ttw 0. iii vj5 heel l Sr finn it nn'W atv noah øt temaibo win tnhttftd 10 d to tht proP tin of an c nnda' iii's on deaf' o 0h. gent rafts of _awce.b onI in tht tas of malt it p vC 1 0 the p çnpefl ol a male ilindu dvifl I1 eSflw 4i1 s n de00' 0 e numu 4 10 thc pi t oils ons of tins ' t t ftap f'WsttV 1o1 p fl the het .
hemO tin' rc latiVe' 5 P1fitd in Class I of iht e 5 litd nIt. tf theiC C flO heir of (la--s I thou up' tin b' jhe re1at1n' speC tiled in ias ii o tht nib dnle ft there arC o fit of any ot the 1') elaS ' thcat upofl the a gnaw at tf a dec ens cal md t tiutre an no gnate" then npofl the ( oti xh s of ,hc de castd 1 S eUt n ie: Is u' th 0 a1th 5 0101.
In I r 1
Qla's o tnt schcw.it t ' jS nndt
'JO of propertY 9
0
a m0 helr tfl
eia J of th8 sckedt' ,
0 nc'
i7tt (C (4 19 1
t
h w iii
1 car tr 1 hr
ci £ "
1'
1
sq ii.'
V 1)) 0
r $
ii jwsq L' i buor I
yr I
zoij'au; amy ,q c .wzqtqsap ama
140145 U 41314) IJk
)3q34r4,plj 30)3 fl
Jo .apjbnrp pw; ipaaf qa'a io tie pnanp
ndqxnJoyluoq3z LI$SIS14JUJ
41014$ JZR 340)14301 )14S 3303$ 33W 114) Jo 2314)0W
jbtw 0 Li 41 Vi
1 3 40
1101)1 34 2 'ipi OIU)4J 11?)
11
ea ii take c n( %ha;f. In ilit (Q$4 t)f nitl ins tilOF Luau one. all
)" ten pit ott lit noila 1K P1 t1Ut
19 There is tin confusion or imhigiiifl. in thc
pro' P41011. hit' c'nnlu%Ion. whft Ii I ekIenI 1mm 11w' judgment
I the a Corn the Mon ekrnd in n Section IC also
nicludes a wldo out uI a void inarrwut- I.e . %C ond wife out ot
a %ecc'nd 'narnage is a 'iuw1oic ahem hit. leath of he husband Is 'i thc. widon lic lIt st wife vu of lit first nianmagc 4.s %tt i)t'I earlier, ibis Vi. £ tWit' IC. in' c'fl.U ied %tibse(juOflt !n the ni t ctM 'i ,i lcHrl M g :xn'ishvl". dc,i.s iiIt , u 1 ' Iaa .rl:nimut i"i iht rnarrlagt% ii s ' . it nix' ncrlc '--t I ''C ' eli \ )1' '.t' In-- q iii' 1 '' %bjQ 'i. t •'1 '1. .'. ,h'j I 1 1 st'.. .d J •. Iji '. fl.
. 1 1 I -. r 1 '1
• 91j11't --.5 •J yr i'.
'MX 1I:;. ' Li- aiE.t it lv a list .i ' ' u'--I'iu --
I I
• • •. ,r:.., • 1. '
•1•
'' f': fl'
cc .• C
1
luk Idrai it a* i'd iIo*
11 ira 'I e I
anna iid thc pionson of thIfmIiMunjcAt id
ulnht qu dtl tcti, f JLidn b Mu cfth deith
1hcrhu4nnd If hir nmngc uth pr, a ot ahd
oldundcrlia nbnic•th hi drotgct 1 ti f
Mdow un r I s tic teiu f he ltd Si essnn
At 19% 1 inc nRe fSrrtinr C M
hei e i h d cehe,nal
OC £14 t *111111 Cs a at t
C C Al r
16
%h ill be null 'iiil nid aiitl pm' t%I•ni'-- iii Seric'n
44 and 395 ot
•iii iflIllal. I cna Cork .yplie a. such inarrIcte and i
iunisbahk iuickr the Ihndu Inrnge rt (ertainl thc
parliament had no intention nJ c'onfeniiig am' right nfl the wile
'v ho i a pam to thc )flenc'e .1 bigamy and gt e her a share in
the propen oilier dct'eaed husband nv Mail interpretation
to the provi%Ion at iht Hindu Succession Act tou1d nullify the objec vitir whi h thc Urn Its Marriage \ a' naaed It ')llwi 'rot cls, It i Ufl% ' nuntr'r tr, the oncept of die bigamy bcint r'unl'--habk md th iY.clfl'.rtgt w 1 be_ . cud. wlcu'hi the a 1 li;uaeri b 1 i i 'b 1 '4 1 T iiLLLf nil,. Ii., (vi It 1)0 i'd 1' 't it' h , IN 'rsl'L' ki n.';. ' IIjh rstan'ttnt. 1.r 'sIi.t 1.1 '_'. t i•' ! J 4' t C , 1, .'. itt--: In t 'I --
,i I '%HI'l :'l I' '' t
tII 1
h --
h. .,1 ' ' I lii ,'. l,,% .1.
u t j r
1"' i
17
such power Is conferred on the trial Judge. It would result In uncertainty and take away the value of binding decision of this Court. The approach of the trial Court Is wholly unsatisfactory and It shows total disregard of statutory provisions as well as the judgment of the High Court and rule of law.
21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, It is clear from the averments In the plaint, if the plaintiff was aged 45 years in 2008, she was born in 1963 therefore, she was married only after 1955 Act came Into force. Admittedly. the defendant was married earlier to her. Therefore, the plaintiff is the second wife. Her marriage with deceased Ningappa was null and void. She did not get the status of a wife. Therefore, she did not get the status of a widow so as to get the benefit under SectIon 10 of the Act. On the basis of the averments In the plaint itself, the plaintIff has no right to seek partitIon and separate possession of her alleged half share against the second wife. She is not "heii' under the Hindu Succession Act.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the trial Court Is perverse, contrary to law and therefore it Is liable to be set aside. A.ccc.wdnilv, ii is set aside. .Her.ce, i pass the EoNo\vIflc order:
(a) The revision petition is allowed.
(b) The irnpuned order is hereby set aside. Ic) The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, as the averrnents i.n the plaint do not disclose the cause of action. PIairit. is rejected.
Sd/ ,1, 'r i"
JUL?'ii