Chattisgarh High Court
Siddharth Khare vs Jigyasa on 14 May, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:23062-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 282 of 2025
Siddharth Khare S/o Ramlochan Khare Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Kodabhat,
HIFZURRAHMAN Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
ANSARI
... Appellant
Digitally signed by
HIFZURRAHMAN versus
ANSARI
Date: 2026.05.18
15:48:09 +0530 Jigyasa W/o Siddharth Khare D/o Khemchand Shriwas, R/o Village Rahoud, Police Station
Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
14.05.2025
Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, "the Act of 1984") challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 157-A/2024 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as " Family Court"),
2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the application filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act of 2 1955") has been allowed and the marriage dated 13.06.2023 solemnized between the appellant and the respondent has been declared null and void.
3. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 13.06.2023 at Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur (C.G.). It is also an admitted fact that the appellant was earlier married to one Pooja Khare and two sons were born out of the said wedlock. By filing an application under Section 11 of the Act of 1955, the respondent pleaded that the appellant after having love affair with her and suppressing the factum of his previous marriage, solemnized marriage with her. It was further pleaded that while the respondent was travelling to Bilaspur to appear in the examination for the post of Assistant Manager in the Forest Department, the appellant pulled took her down from the bus and brought her to Raipur and pressurized her to marry him, failing which he threatened her with dire consequences. Being frightened by such threats, the respondent solemnized marriage with the appellant. It was further alleged that the appellant threatened the respondent not to disclose his previous marriage to anyone and further threatened to make her marriage video viral. Thereafter, in February, 2024, the appellant allegedly made the marriage photographs viral, pursuant to which the respondent submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir on 15.04.2024. Hence, seeking declaration of the marriage dated 13.06.2023 as null and void, the application was filed.
4. The application was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement contending that the respondent was fully aware of his previous marriage with Pooja Khare and the children born out of the said wedlock. It was pleaded that his marriage with his previous wife had already been dissolved and despite having knowledge of the same, the respondent voluntarily and out of her free will performed marriage with him. It was further pleaded that under family 3 pressure, the respondent filed the present application. It was also pleaded that since the marriage between the parties was known to the family members of the respondent and she was not being permitted to go with the appellant, he had filed proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Pamgarh (C.G.). Accordingly, dismissal of the application was prayed for.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the non-applicant/respondent "Proved"
married the applicant during the lifetime of his first wife or without obtaining dissolution of marriage from her?
2. Whether the consent of the applicant for "Not Proved"
marriage was obtained by force/coercion?
3. Relief and cost of proceedings? "As per Paragraph 18"
6. In support of her case, the respondent examined three witnesses including herself as PW-1, Satyam Chandel as PW-2 and Krishna Mohan Shrivas as PW-3. The appellant also examined three witnesses including himself as DW- 1, Ankit Lahre as DW-2 and Kuldeep as DW-3.
7. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Family Court decided the issues in favour of the respondent and against the appellant and by the impugned judgment and decree, declared the marriage dated 13.06.2023 solemnized between the appellant and the respondent as null and void, which has led to filing of the present appeal. 4
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court are perverse, contrary to the facts available on record and liable to be set aside. He submits that prior to solemnization of marriage with the respondent, the appellant had already obtained mutual divorce from his first wife i.e. Pooja Khare and therefore the findings recorded by the learned Family Court are unsustainable in law. He further submits that the respondent was fully aware of the appellant's previous marriage and the fact that he had two children and despite such knowledge, she voluntarily solemnized marriage with the appellant out of her own free will and consent. Hence, according to learned counsel, the marriage between the parties is valid and not hit by any legal provision.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that the respondent was forcibly taken by the appellant on 13.06.2023 and was compelled to marry him in Arya Samaj Temple against her will. It is further submitted that the earlier marriage of the appellant with his first wife was subsisting on the date of the alleged marriage with the respondent, as no legal dissolution of the said marriage had taken place. Hence, the alleged marriage with the respondent is void ab initio and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection.
11. Issue No.1 pertains to the marriage solemnized by the appellant with the respondent during the lifetime of his first wife and without obtaining legal dissolution of the earlier marriage. The said issue has been held proved by the learned Family Court. While deciding the said issue, the learned Family Court meticulously examined the evidence adduced by both the parties. From the 5 evidence available on record, the learned Family Court found that though the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized at Arya Samaj Temple, Raipur on 13.06.2023, on the said date there existed no decree of dissolution of marriage between the appellant and his first wife. Though the appellant sought to contend that the marriage had already been dissolved before a Notary, the learned Family Court rightly held that such dissolution cannot be recognized in the eyes of law.
12. The learned Family Court further observed that under Section 5(i) of the Act of 1955, a valid Hindu marriage can be solemnized only if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage, failing which the marriage would be null and void. The appellant relied upon Ex.P/1, alleged to be a deed of dissolution of marriage executed on 22.02.2024, however, the same cannot be treated as a decree of divorce granted by a competent Court in accordance with law. Consequently, the first marriage of the appellant with Pooja Khare continued to subsist in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court also rejected the defence of the appellant that the respondent voluntarily married him out of love and affection. On a careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is manifest that the marriage between the appellant and his first wife had not been dissolved in accordance with law by any competent Court. Mere execution of an agreement between the appellant and his first wife regarding dissolution of marriage would not entitle the appellant to circumvent the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 5(i) of the Act of 1955. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court declaring the marriage dated 13.06.2023 as null and void do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.6
13. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
14. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
H.Ansari