C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1064 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA sd/- and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No yes ========================================================== PRACHI HARISHCHANDRA BAROT Versus PADHIYAR JAIMIN JESANGBHAI ========================================================== Appearance: MR. VARUN G RAI(7135) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. AMAN F MANSURI WITH MR MINHAJ M SHAIKH(6847) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 31/08/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI) “Mere knowledge of the subsistence of an earlier marriage cannot validate a second marriage, nor can it cure its void-ness”. C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – the original applicant under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 passed in Family Suit No.407 of 2023 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, whereby the suit moved by the appellant - wife praying to declare that her so-called marriage registered with the respondent dated 27.06.2022 is illegal and void, was rejected. 2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned Family Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3.1 It is a case where the appellant - wife and the respondent - husband are residents of same Village – Mohalla and that they were in love. The respondent was a married person and father of one child named Darshit and the appellant was well aware of the said fact. Many a times, the respondent used to tell the appellant - wife about his miserable life with his first wife named Minaxi and for him to take divorce from his first wife, he had initiated the proceedings. 3.2 It is further the case that in February 2022, the respondent tricked the appellant - wife by stating that he C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 was legally divorced with his first wife - Minaxi and that now, he wants to marry her. By doing so, he took her to the office of his known advocate at Manisha Chokdi, Vadodara and obtained her signatures on the pre-prepared papers relating to marriage registration and according to pre- prepared scheme, the spouse registered the marriage before Marriage Registrar, Jhagadhia, Sultanpur Gram Panchayat at regd. No.370 on 27.06.2022. Both the parties had kept their respective families in the dark about the said fact. Thus, the respondent told the appellant - wife that he has legally taken divorce from his first wife and that it would take time for getting judgment and decree from the Court. By doing so, he compelled the appellant - wife to leave her parental home and on 21.02.2023, they both left their home and went to Surat and therefrom, they went to Goa. 3.3 It is further the case that the appellant - wife had left her home without giving an intimation to her parents, therefore, she contacted her acquainted person at Vadodara, and at that time, she came to know that her parents had lodged a missing complaint in Laxmipura Police Station. She informed to her acquainted person that she got married with the respondent and that they would return on 28.02.2023 and accordingly, she went to Laxmipura – Gorwa Police Station and recorded her statement in the missing complaint. C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 3.4 It is further the case that the appellant - wife came to know about the written complaint given by the wife of the respondent namely Minaxiben against her husband i.e. the respondent on 28.02.2023 and that no divorce had taken place between the respondent and his first wife. Further, the respondent with the help of advocates of Vadodara/Padra, obtained marriage registration form and described himself as “Unmarried” and that she never got married by performing the ceremony of ‘Saptapadi’ and had never seen the two witnesses for registered marriage or the Priest who had performed the marriage. 3.5 Therefore, the appellant – wife filed suit before the learned Family Court, Vadodara being Family Suit No.407 of 2023 which came to be rejected by the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025. Being, aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree, the present first appeal has been preferred by the appellant – wife. 4. Submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant are as under: 4.1 It is submitted that the learned Family Court erred in failing to appreciate that the respondent – husband’s first marriage was never legally dissolved by a decree of divorce from a Competent Court. No cogent evidence was produced during the trial to establish the existence of any recognizable custom within the parties’ community C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 permitting divorce through the mere execution of a private deed. It is further submitted that the respondent – husband obtained the consent of the appellant – wife fraudulently by stating that he has obtained divorce from his first wife legally, however, the respondent – husband has not produced any documentary evidence to that effect before the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that in view of the subsistence of the previous marriage of the respondent, who otherwise by adopting illegal measures and has suppressed the material facts and thereby assured and put the appellant in confidence that his previous marriage had been dissolved and thereby contracted a second marriage with appellant herein. 4.2 It is submitted that at the time of registration of marriage of respondent with the appellant, the respondent declared himself as ‘Unmarried’ in the marriage registration form. It is further submitted that the respondent in his cross-examination admitted that he is having a son named Darshit with his first wife – Minaxiben and since 2023, his first wife – Minaxiben has been residing separately. The first wife – Minaxiben of the respondent filed a missing complaint against the respondent at Laxmipura Police Station, Vadodara, whereby his statement was recorded by stating that from now onwards he would not harass his first wife – Minaxiben, which itself shows that first marriage of the respondent is in existence and therefore, his second C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 marriage with the appellant is null and void under the provisions of law. 4.3 Hence, it is submitted that the learned Family Court Judge, without appreciating the material evidence on record and the mandatory provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), has committed error by rejecting the suit of the appellant – wife and not declaring her marriage with respondent – husband as null and void despite clear violation of Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Act. 4.4 Accordingly, it is prayed to allow this first appeal and the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Family Court be quashed and set aside by declaring the respondent – husband’s marriage with the appellant – wife dated 27.06.2022 to be null and void. 5. Submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent are as under: 5.1 Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the factum as to the previous marriage of the respondent with his first wife – Minaxiben and having blessed with a child was well-within the knowledge of the appellant and with the aforesaid facts knowingly, the appellant has contracted the second marriage with the respondent and therefore, the appellant herein cannot take the benefit of her own wrong. This aspect has been duly C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 considered by the learned Family Court. Therefore, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that the said suit filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the learned Family Court Judge and accordingly, submitted to uphold the impugned judgment and decree and to reject this appeal. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for respective parties, the core issue which requires to be determined is whether the marriage in question dated 27.06.2022 having been solemnized with the appellant by the respondent is legal and valid as per the provisions of the Act or not. 7. To deal with the aforesaid aspect, relevant provisions of Section 5(i) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are reproduced herein-below: ...“5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.-- A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely;-- (I) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; xxx xxx xxx 11. Void marriages.-- Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 Section 5.”... 8. Applying the aforesaid provisions to the case on hand, it is apparent that the respondent has failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence or a decree of divorce from a competent Court of law to establish that his first marriage with Minaxiben was legally dissolved prior to 27.06.2022. Furthermore, no legally recognized procedure within the community permitting divorce through private deeds or mutual understandings was pleaded or proved. The continuous existence of the first marriage is heavily fortified by the respondent's own admission during cross- examination regarding his son, Darshit, and the police records from Laxmipura Police Station showing that his first wife was actively pursuing complaints against him around the timeline of the second marriage. 9. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 530, wherein, while examining the status of a Hindu woman marrying a Hindu male having a living spouse, has categorically held that for appreciating the validity of such a marriage, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must prevail. Interpreting Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a lawful Hindu marriage requires that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage, and that a marriage solemnized in contravention of this condition is null and void. Page 8 of 11 C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 10. In continuation of the aforesaid, even the learned Family Court has committed error by rejecting the appellant’s case. Instead of pursuing whether the legal provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act were complied with, the learned Family Court focused on what the appellant knew or did not know about the first marriage. 11. According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav (supra), the rules of the Hindu Marriage Act are strict and absolute. Once it is proven that the husband already had a living wife at the time of the second marriage, the court has no choice but to declare the second marriage null and void. Therefore, the learned Family Court failed to apply this mandatory law, making its judgment legally unsustainable. 12. Section 5(i) of the Act creates an embargo, expressly enunciating that a marriage may be solemnized between two Hindus only if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. In the present case, it is admittedly established that the respondent – husband had a legally wedded spouse living at the time he contracted the second marriage with the appellant herein. Consequently, the respondent – husband’s second marriage with the appellant is hit by statutory bar under Section 5(i) of the Act. By operation of Section 11 of the Act, his second marriage with the appellant herein becomes structurally ‘void ab initio’. 13. The factum as to subsistence of the earlier marriage of the respondent – husband with his first wife namely, C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 Minaxiben, and performing the second marriage during the subsistence of the previous marriage cannot be said to be valid, as clearly discussed under Section 5(i) read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 14. In a nutshell, the detailed discussion made in foregoing paragraphs makes it abundantly clear that since the question in the case on hand attracts the provision of Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the consequences of the contravention of the aforesaid provisions, which again, falls within the provision of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned Family Court has committed error by solely confining itself that the appellant had knowledge with regard to the previous marriage while contracting the second marriage. However, the said contention does not find any force or legs to stand, as no material and credence seems to have been filed so as to constrain the learned Family Judge to come to the conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion arrived by the learned Family Judge does warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal deserves consideration and the same is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 passed in Family Suit No.407 of 2023 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara is quashed and set aside. 16. The marriage solemnized between the appellant – wife and the respondent – husband dated 27.06.2022 is hereby C/FA/1064/2025(GJHC240226102025) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026 declared null and void. 17. Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. sd/- (ILESH J. VORA,J) sd/- (R. T. VACHHANI, J) PARMAR KRISH Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/09/2026 17:03:03