HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 374 of 2026 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. Re : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2026 1. Application is filed for condoning the delay of 1246 days in filing the appeal. 2. In view of what has been stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The delay condonation application is allowed. 4. Office is requested to allot regular number to the appeal. Re : Order on the Appeal 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.10.2022, passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court. 2. The undisputed facts in this case as per learned counsel for the appellant is that she is the first wife of the defendant no.1 Rohit Singh. Rohit Singh allegedly got married to "X" (identity being protected as the allegation against the defendant no.2 is of being a party to bigamy). Aggrieved by the second marriage of her husband during her lifetime and during the validity of the marriage to the appellant, the appellant filed a case under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare the second marriage of her husband with "X" as void. The learned trial court dismissed the said suit on the ground that Section 11 can only be invoked by either of the parties to the second marriage who wants the marriage to be declared as void. The learned trial court held that as the appellant herein was the first wife, she could not file a suit under Section 11 to declare the second marriage of her husband to "X" as void marriage. In this regard, Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act lays down a condition precedent for a hindu marriage of which the first one is that neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Section 11 has to be read in conjunction with Section 5. Section 11 of the Hindu Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, Ramesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Smt. Ranjana Singh And Another .....Appellant(s) Rohit Singh And Another .....Respondent(s) Marriage Act is reproduced hereunder:- "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 section 5." 3. From the above, it is clear that the "either party thereto" refers to the second marriage whereby the right to declare the marriage as void is given to either the husband or the wife to have the marriage declared as void where the subsistence of the first marriage was not disclosed by either of the parties to the other who would not have otherwise consented for the marriage. 4. Thus from a conjoint reading it is clear that the order passed by the learned trial court holding that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was only the right of "X" whom the husband of the appellant married during the subsistence of their marriage to file under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act if she was so aggrieved, cannot be faulted. 5. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act however reserves the right of the appellant to prosecute the husband for bigamy under the I.P.C/BNS. 6. The dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not preclude her right to present a civil suit for declaring the second marriage of her husband as void under the general law. 7. Therefore, this Court on the basis of the admitted facts does not find any necessity to interfere with the impugned order and this appeal is disposed of reserving the right of the appellant to file a civil suit under the general law for declaration of the second marriage as void. April 20, 2026 Gaurav Kuls FAPLD No. 374 of 2026 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad