Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors., has held that after the death of the husband, his parents have a right to pursue the proceedings under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for the purpose of declaring the marriage void.

What was the Background of Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors. Case?

• In this case, Deepak Mahendra Pandey (respondent) filed a petition, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) on the ground that the marriage was an outcome of fraud as he has come to know that his wife Shatakshi Mishra (appellant) was already married whereas at the time of marriage, she projected herself as unmarried and therefore, the marriage be declared void after filing of the petition.
• Unfortunately, the husband, Deepak Mahendra Pandey died on 24^th February 2023 in a road accident.
• The application filed by the parents after the death of their son was allowed holding that the provisions of Order XXII of CPC are applicable in the present case and the parents were made party to the proceedings to pursue the petition.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court by the appellant.
• It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute cannot continue after death of one of the spouses during the pendency of the litigation.
• The counsel for respondent argued that since the property rights of the appellant and the parents of the deceased were dependent on the outcome of the application under Section 11 of HMA.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal as it is devoid of merit.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that the legal representative who is not of either of the parties and was not one of the spouse to the marriage in question can pursue the petition filed under Section 11 of HMA that marriage should be declared void and therefore, their application filed under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC would be maintainable.
• The High Court placed reliance on a judgement given by the Supreme Court in the case of Garima Singh Vs. Pratima Singh and Anr. (2023).
  • It was held that the words “either party thereto" and "against the other party" in Section 11 of HMA must be read harmoniously. The Court held that “either party thereto" cannot be interpreted narrowly, restricting equal protection.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 11 of HMA

About:

• Section 11 of HMA deals with the provision of Void Marriages.
• This section does not define void marriages but gives the grounds on which a marriage can be called void.
• It states that 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.

Grounds:

• Under HMA any marriage is void if it does not fulfill the conditions mentioned under section 5 clause (i), (iv) and (v).
  • Under Clause (i) of Section 5 neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.
  • Under Clause (iv) of Section 5 the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two.
  • Under Clause (v) of Section 5 the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two.

Effect:

• The parties don’t have the position of husband and wife in a void marriage.
• Children born from a void marriage are legitimate according to Section16 of HMA.
  • The Supreme Court in the matter of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) has affirmed that a child born out of a void or voidable marriage has the right to claim a share in their parents' share of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property under the Mitakshara law.
    • However, it was emphasized that such a child cannot automatically be considered a coparcener in the HUF by birth.
• There are no mutual rights and obligations present in a void marriage.

Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC

• Order XXII of CPC deals with the death, marriage and insolvency of parties.
• Rule 3 of Order XXII deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff. It states that—

(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.

(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.