Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in Mudireddydivya vs Sulktisivarama Reddy on 26 March, 2025Matching Fragments
24. A pleading of Customary Divorce must be proved by documentary or oral evidence.
25. The first time the respondent pleaded the fact of the appellant having constructive knowledge of the respondent's customary divorce with his first wife was in Crl.M.P.No.2863 of 2020 in Crime No.978 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on 23.12.2020. The statement made is as follows:
"It is further humbly submitted that the de facto complainant has constructive knowledge as on the date of marriage that the petitioner had dissolved his first 2017 (1) MH.L.J 281 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 4605 C.A.No.1095 of 2022 in F.A.No.18576 of 2022 marriage and divorced his first wife through customary practice and tradition prevalent in his family and relatives."
63. The impugned order opens itself up for criticism at many levels.
64. First, the Family Court imputes constructive knowledge to the appellant with regard to the divorce between the respondent and his first wife without any basis for reaching this conclusion. The Trial Court assumes that the appellant had knowledge of the divorce since the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was a "love cum arranged marriage". Not only is this finding completely irrelevant to the nature of the marriage performed between the parties but also is contrary to the record since the respondent has categorically stated in his counter to the petition that their marriage was an arranged marriage. The Family Court concludes that the appellant was at fault for not enquiring about the divorce of the respondent despite being married for six months.
66. The only finding given by the Trial Court is that the appellant is estopped from seeking the annulment of marriage on the ground of being the respondent's surviving wife since the appellant had knowledge of the same. The Trial Court, however, does not allude to any material fact or evidence in support of the finding of constructive knowledge on the part of the appellant. Moreover, both the decisions referred to by the Trial Court for denying alimony to the appellant namely Mangala Bhivaji Lad Vs. Dhondiba Rambhau Aher 18 and Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Ranantrao Shivram Adhav decided by the Supreme Court on 27.01.1988 [citation not given in the impugned order]. Smt.Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav (supra) was referred to by the AIR 2010 Bom 122 Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh (supra) where the Supreme Court held that even a spouse whose marriage has been declared void under section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse under section 25 of the said Act. There is no discussion as to the relevance of these judgments in denying the appellant's prayer for annulment of marriage.